K ABDULLA Vs. SATISH A DESSAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Sandra Vaz e Correia, Member-The complainant has preferred this complaint alleging deficiency in service by opposite parties for their failure of complete the construction of the ground floor premises of the building of Taleigao, Tiswadi.

(2.) In a nutshell, it is the complainant's case that he entered into an agreement dated 27.5.1993 with the opposite parties for purchase of ground floor premises in the building to be constructed on a plot bearing survey No.160/1 situated at Taleigao, Tiswadi, Goa. Under the said agreement, the complainant was required to effect total payment of Rs.17,00,000 for the purchase of ground floor premises having a builtup area of 160 sq. mts. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.11,00,000 receipt whereof was acknowledged and admitted by the opposite parties in the agreement itself. Separate stamped receipts were also issued for the said amounts. The opposite parties were duty-bound to complete the construction of the building and hand over possession of the premises on or before 30.9.1993. However, there was hardly any progress in the construction work as on September 1993. The complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties calling upon them to either complete the construction within the stipulated time or to refund the sum of Rs.11,00,000 along with interest @ 24% p. a. The complainant also claimed damages of Rs.6,00,000. In repsonse, the opposite parties denied having received a sum of Rs.11,00,000 but admitted receipt of Rs.1,00,000. The complainant was thus a victim of unfair trade practices adopted by the opposite parties who were contractors in construction activities and the opposite parties denied receipt of Rs.11,00,000 even after having admitted receipt in the agreements as well as issued stamp receipts. Hence the complaint.

(3.) Upon being noticed, the opposite parties filed their written version and submitted that the complaint was misconceived, incompetent and untenable and filed mala fidely to blackmail the opposite parties into submitting to the complainant fraudulent demands. It was admitted that the opposite party No.1 started construction of a building in a plot which he had earlier purchased. However, he could not complete the same on account of financial constraints. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and offered to finance the completion of the construction or else to buy the ground floor premises having area of 160 sq. mts. The complainant further proposed that he would find a buyer or purchase the ground floor premises himself at a price of Rs.17,00,000 and would make a down payment of Rs.1,00,000 at the time of execution of the agreement and pay the balance amount within four months time. The complainant further proposed that in order to enable him to find a buyer and collect a substantial amount forthwith from the latter, it would be necessary to indicate in the agreement that a further sum of Rs.10,00,000 had been paid by the complainant as part payment of the price. He further represented that no sooner he entered into a deal with a buyer he would effect payment of the said sum of Rs.10,00,000. Furthermore, he represented that he would purchase the ground floor premises himself in case he did not succeed in finding a buyer. The complainant proposed that there should be two receipts in his favour, one with requisite details of the cheque in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and the other in respect of the sum of Rs.10,00,000 without any details as also without any date. Accordingly, two agreements were executed simultaneously, one allegedly for being shown to the prospective buyer and the other for his own record as also two receipts, one for Rs.1,00,000 and the other for Rs.10,00,000.