- (1.) BY way of this complaint the complainant has prayed for refund of the price of the flat in question in the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/ - paid by her to the opponent and interest in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ -, in all Rs. 11,00,000/ - on following brief allegations of facts: The opponent floated a scheme for construction and allotment of flats in the name and style Prasad near Nehru Nagar Circle, opposite Jain Derasar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. The complainant proposed for purchase of a flat on the first floor at the cost of Rs. 12,95,000/ - and she was allotted Flat No. 301 on 1st floor for the said consideration. The flat accordingly booked on 23.2.1998 and consideration in part was paid as under Rs. 20,000/ - on 23.2.1998 Rs. 60,000/ - on 3.3.1998 Rs. 5,20,000/ - on 6.4.1998 Rs. 2,00,000/ - on 3.11.1999 Rs. 8,00,000/ -
(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant, status of the work at site remained as unfinished even till the date on which the complaint was filed on or around 5.5.2001. The complainant has also made grievance with regard to inferior quality of work and damage caused to the pillars and walls in the earthquake that shattered the whole of the State of Gujarat on 26.1.2001. The complainant has, therefore, prayed for the aforesaid reliefs.
(3.) THE opponent has filed written statement at Exh. 5. While denying the allegations contained in the complaint, he also asserted that the same is barred by limitation, that the complainant has not made full payment of the consideration agreed upon between the parties, that the balance amount payable by the complainant to the opponent would run into around Rs. 6,00,000/ -, that there is no intentional delay on the part of the opponent in completing the construction inasmuch as there was heavy rains in July 2000, that on 26.1.2001 there was earthquake, that there occurred financial difficulties during the last three years and that under such circumstances, there was delay on the part of the opponent in completing the construction. Rest of the allegations contained in the complaint have not been admitted by the opponent. According to the opponent, this complaint cannot be entertained in view of the provisions contained in Sections 96 and 166 of the Gujarat Co -operative Societies Act, 1961. The same is, therefore, sought to be dismissed with cost. The complainant filed affidavit in rejoinder at Exh. 13 denying the statement made in the written statement which is not on solemn affirmation. The complainant has set out facts with regard to how such a long delay has been caused by the opponent in completing the construction. According to her since the opponent failed to give possession of the flat in question in November 1999, though she was ready and willing to pay the balance amount of around Rs. 3,00,000/ -, she was required to file the present complaint. She has also filed additional affidavit in rejoinder dated 4.3.2005 of Dhirenbhai Chinubhai Langalia, co -complainant and the same is accompanied with affidavit of Mr. Bipin S. Vyas. Smt. Bhavana B. Vyas has also filed affidavit along with the said rejoinder. The complainant has placed on record xerox copy of the advertisement given by the opponent and the xerox copies of receipts with regard to payments made by her. She has filed xerox copy of the certificate issued by Syndicate Bank confirming payment of Rs. 8 lakhs having been made by the complainant to the opponent M/s. H.B. Builders Private Limited. She has finally placed on record the correspondence which was entered into between the parties.;