PRATTY GOPALA RAO Vs. BHAVANI AGENCIES REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.153/2005 on the file of District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam, the complainant preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a flat bearing No.7 measuring 1235 s.ft. plinth area in Garuda Enclave by virtue of registered sale deed dated 21-4-2003 from the opposite parties and one Garuda Nageswara Rao who was the owner of the land. The complainant submitted that he paid Rs.5,43,180/- towards sale consideration corresponding to 60 sq. yds of joint undivided share and 80% of construction value of the said flat in the third floor. An agreement was arrived at on 21-4-2003 between the complainant and opposite parties in respect of the remaining 20% construction and as per the said agreement, the complainant has to pay Rs.88,920/- for the remaining work. Accordingly the said amount was paid to the opposite parties but the opposite parties demanded Rs.1,00,000/- towards marble flooring, wooden cupboard, putti and emulsion painting to all internal and external walls. The complainant submitted that he entered into another agreement dated 18-7-2003 and 3rd opposite party and subsequently paid Rs.1,40,000/- and the work was not completed and on the other hand, the opposite parties pressurized the complainant for payment. It is the case of the complainant submitted that he had paid Rs.8,72,100/- and the opposite parties failed to provide lift, marble flooring, cupboards, emulsion paint, colour sanitary, plumbing, window grills of his choice and fixed 4 bore well to the apartment instead of 6 . The reduction of size is contrary to the agreement dated 21-4-2003 and similarly they laid tiled flooring of cheaper quality instead of marble flooring and the walls of the flat developed cracks due to use of inferior quality of cement and iron. Car parking place was not provided inspite of payment for the same. The complainant further submitted that the opposite parties agreed to deliver the flat within 8 months from the date of agreement i.e. 21-4-2003 and they failed to do so and as such they are liable to pay interest at 18% p.a. and the value of unfinished works from 21-12-2003. The complainant submitted that he was put of loss of Rs.5,000/- per month due to delay in completion and kept the flat under lock and key and also failed to pay the electricity consumption charges. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite parties to grant Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization, to grant costs and to direct the opposite parties to handover the complaint schedule property as per the agreement dated 21-4-2003 and as per the enhanced agreement dated 18-7-2003 with car parking slot in the cellar, to restore III phase power supply meter and to incorporate the reliefs and (d) in the amended complaint.

(3.) Third opposite party filed counter prior to amendment of the complaint which was adopted by opposite parties 1 and 2 and after amendment, additional counter was filed by opposite party No.3 which was adopted by opposite parties 1 and 2. They contended that Garuda Nageswara Rao is land owner of site measuring 538.30 sq. yds and an agreement dated 3-12-2001 was entered into between the said Nageswara Rao and 1st opposite party firm for development. It was agreed to give 40% of built up plinth area to owner in the form of two flats in the first floor, two flats in the second floor and four car parking places. The remaining 60% of built up area was agreed to be retained by the opposite parties and they paid interest free refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- to the land owner to be refunded at the time of handing over 4 flats to him and it was also agreed that the land owner shall convey the flats retained by the opposite parties to the prospective purchasers without demanding any consideration.