Decided on December 19,2008

Castle Constructions Appellant
Bobbili Rama Krishna Respondents


M.SHREESHA, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order in C.D. No. 682/2004 on the file of District Forum -II, Visakhapatnam, opposite party preferred this appeal.
(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant entered into an agreement of sale with opposite party on 27.8.2002 for construction and delivery of flat No.13 in Mercury Castle situated at S.No. 42/5, Chinnagadili village within Municipal Corporation limits of Visakhapatnam. Opposite party received an amount of Rs. 4,29,050 in all from the complainant. The complainant submitted that as per Para 2 Page 3 of the agreement, opposite party has to complete the construction of the said flat and handover possession of the same within 18 months from the date of agreement i.e. 27.8.2002 and the opposite party has to deliver the flat to her by 26.2.2004 and thus there is deficiency of service. The complainant, therefore, got issued a legal notice dated 12.4.2004 demanding Rs. 10,000 per month for the delayed period from 27.2.2004 till the date of delivery of the flat. The complainant submitted that the opposite party having received the money, part of which was borrowed by the complainant for which she was paying interest and also paying rent for her accommodation in Sagarnagar and she is deprived of enjoying her flat. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 333.33 ps. per day from 27.2.2004 till the delivery of flat No.13, Mercury castle situated in S.No. 42/5, Chinnagadili village together with damages of Rs. 70,000 and other costs.
(3.) OPPOSITE party filed counter admitted that he received Rs. 4,29,050 from the complainant in different dates but submitted that the complainant did not pay the amounts promptly as per the agreement dated 27.8.2002. He admitted that he has to deliver the flat within 18 months from the date of agreement i.e. 27.8.2002 and submitted that the complainant did not pay the instalments on time as stipulated in the agreement dated 27.8.2002 as can be seen from the tabular form given by her in the complaint and therefore she herself is at fault as per the agreement dated 27.8.2002 and opposite party is entitled to interest @ 24% p.a. on the delayed payments. Similar agreements were entered with other flat owners and as per the respective flat owners tastes, interior works namely flooring, colours and other interior works will be carried out with the extra expenses borne by the respective flat owners. Such works will be carried out by the builder for additional works after payment of the costs of such works. The complainants wanted to have mosaic flooring and electrical works and as such a supplemental agreement was entered into between the complainant and the opposite party on 30.8.2002. As per clause V of supplemental agreement, the total cost of additional works to be carried out is Rs. 66,200 and on the date of agreement, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,200 as advance by way of cash and the balance amount of Rs. 65,000 shall be paid by the complainant to opposite party within one month from the date of supplemental agreement. After entering into the supplemental agreement, the complainant once again changed her mind and requested the opposite party to lay marble flooring instead of mosaic flooring, ceramic tiles in toilets in the place of mosaic and agreed to pay the difference cost of marble flooring Rs. 60,000. The complainant paid Rs. 60,000 to opposite party and has to pay Rs. 15,000 towards providing electric transformer and Rs. 10,000 towards providing lift and these amounts shall be borne by all the flat owners in addition to construction agreement but the complainant did not pay these amounts to opposite party. Therefore, he addressed a letter on 4.6.2003 to the complainant demanding payment of instalments to opposite party as the instalments are being delayed and he is entitled for interest @ 24% p.a. which was acknowledged by the complainant on 6.6.2003. Another letter was addressed to the complainant on 25.2.2004 requesting the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000 towards electricity charges and payment towards providing lift within 7 days otherwise the opposite party is entitled to interest @ 24% p.a. but the complainant did not respond to the said letter. Hence the opposite party filed a complaint O.S. No. 414/2004 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,49,500 towards cost of additional works and interest on delayed payments and for the amenities provided and submitted that there is no deficiency of service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs. A1 to A15 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposites party to pay Rs. 2,000 per month from 27.2.2004 till the date of delivery of flat together with costs of Rs. 2,500.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.