- (1.) THIRU Justice A. Raman, President - The complainant is the appellant. The complainant laid a claim before the lower Forum pleading as follows: The complainant purchased shop No. G09 an undivided share of 75 sq. ft. from the opposite party. The complainant paid the full consideration amount of Rs. 1,70,000/ -. He has also paid Rs. 5,000/ - as additional amount towards single phase power connection. There is no amount due in respect of the transaction from the complainant to the opposite party. The complainant made several requests upon the opposite party to execute the sale deed in his name but the opposite party has been avoiding to do so. To the letter sent by the complainant on 20.11.2000, the opposite party failed to give any reply. The complainant has, therefore, come forward with this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to register the sale deed and pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - to the complainant for causing mental pain and cost.
(2.) THE opposite party contended as follows: The complainant is not maintainable. After entering into the agreement, the complainant requested the opposite party to construct a separate bathroom inside the shop premises and put up two windows one on the front side and another in the back side and to provide for installation of A/c and power point for A/c and to provide wooden doors instead of iron rolling shutter and also for providing a loft inside the shop. The above being items not mentioned in the agreement of sale, the opposite party however agreed to effect the same provided the complainant pays the cost of the same. The cost of providing these facilities was in a sum of Rs. 25,455/ -. The said amount has not been paid or in time by the complainant. The vacant possession was handed over to the complainant on 1.6.1999. After vacant possession, the complainant paid the balance consideration but leaving the sum of Rs. 25,455/ - still due. He has been assuring to make payment. The opposite party undertook to execute the sale deed after the said amount of Rs. 25,455/ - is paid. Hence, in such circumstances, the opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service.
(3.) THE District Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to execute the sale deed and hand over registration sale deed along with other relevant documents to the complainant and directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - to the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of its order. Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant has preferred this appeal. The complainant and opposite party entered into an agreement on 29.11.1998 whereby it was agreed that 75 sq. ft. of undivided share in shop No. G09 Chiranjeevi Tower be sold to the complainant. The complainant has admittedly paid the entire sale consideration. It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant after the execution of the sale agreement wanted certain works to be done and promised to pay the cost of the said work and that accordingly the opposite party carried out those items of work for which he totally incurred a sum of Rs. 25,455/ - and since the said amount has not been paid he could not execute the sale deed. It is also not in dispute that possession has also been handed over to the complainant even in 1999. It is also admitted by the complainant that he made a request to the opposite party to make certain extra provisions such as ventilators and windows and replacing the still shutters with wooden doors and for making provision for installation of A/c and power point for A/c. The opposite party had furnished before the District Forum that he has incurred an extra expenditure of Rs. 15,250/ - for making the additional provisions requested for by the complainant. The lower Forum has accepted the figure furnished by the opposite party as reasonable and it has also held that the opposite party had agreed to deduct Rs. 7,250/ - from out of Rs. 15,250/ - and, therefore, on the basis of the same has passed the impugned order. The complainant agrees that he requested the opposite party to make certain provisions. The provisions asked for have been made by the opposite party. The cost incurred for the same has to be reimbursed by the complainant to the opposite party. For requested for specifically by the complainant after the sale agreement and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service as far as the opposite party is concerned when he stated that he was willing to execute the sale deed only after the sum due to him towards the making of further provisions are paid to him. Therefore, from the materials produced by both the parties and on the basis of admitted case of the parties, we do not find that any deficiency in service can be made out as against the opposite party by the complainant. Consequently, we do not see any merit in this appeal.;