LAWS(NCD)-2014-2-73

RAMESH KUMAR Vs. MRS. PRASANNA BHANDARY

Decided On February 21, 2014
RAMESH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Mrs. Prasanna Bhandary Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by order dated 29.5.2013 passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short, 'State Commission') Petitioner/Opposite party has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act')

(2.) Respondent/Complainant's case is that petitioner promoted a residential apartment/building under the name and style of 'MAURISHKA TOWERS' in the apartment situated in Kadri "A" Village of Bendoor Ward of Mangalore City within Mangalore City. Respondent purchased one apartment situated at ground floor numbered as G-01 in the said building along with car parks number G-01 and G-01A on the basement floor with 2.37% undivided rights in the land and also common areas and facilities. It is alleged that at the time of negotiation, petitioner has promised to provide many amenities and facilities in the said apartment.

(3.) Apart from the above, petitioner has undertaken to use quality materials, construction and workmanship in the said apartment building. On believing the petitioner, respondent agreed to purchase the apartment and entered into a written agreement dated 22.09.2007. As per the terms of the agreement, petitioner had undertaken to convey the apartment to the respondent with a clear marketable title from all encumbrances. Further, petitioner has agreed and undertaken to deliver the apartment on or before 31.03.2009 and to give copy of the completion certificate in respect of the apartment building issued by Mangalore City Corporation. Respondent has been insisting the Petitioner to complete the apartment as per the terms of the agreement but petitioner has not completed the construction of the apartment. Therefore, respondent made delay in payment of the installment amount to the petitioner. It is further alleged that petitioner had issued various letters to repay the installment amount and also threatened the respondent that if the amount is not paid, he will cancel the agreement for sale and forfeit the advance amount and dispose the schedule 'B' apartment to 3rd party.