J.ANKAMMA CHOWDARY Vs. HALCYON HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants attracted by the brochure of opposite party No.1 agreed to buy an independent bungalow and were informed that the necessary sanctions and approvals in respect of the said land were obtained from the concerned authorities vide proceedings No.D/1675/99 dated 2-8-99 of HUDA. As per the scheme concealed by the opposite party the open plot of land in the lay out will be conveyed in favour of the purchaser upon receiving the cost of the plot. An agreement for construction of the proposed house to be entered into after receiving an advance towards the construction cost. The complainants agreed to buy plot No.9 admeasuring 556 sq. yds. in the layout promoted under the name of The Anchorage Enclave. The complainants paid a sum of Rs.22,24,000/- towards the cost of 556 sq. yds. and the complainants availed a loan of Rs.18,90,400/- from opposite party No.2 at the time of the registration of the sale deed. Opposite party No.1 is in receipt of the said amount of Rs.22,24,000/- and executed the sale deed on 21-8-2006. On the same day opposite party No.1 entered into a construction agreement with the complainants for construction of a bungalow comprising of 3,800 sq. ft. of super built up area which is inclusive of verandas/porticos/balconies etc. for a consideration of Rs.47,25,886/-. As per the agreement, opposite party No.1 should complete the construction by 30/8/2007 and should also provide water and sewerage lines and electric and cable connections in the subject layout. The second opposite party sanctioned a sum of Rs.67,00,000/- towards the cost of the land and construction, out of which a sum of Rs.18,90,400/- was sanctioned towards the cost of the land. The complainants submit that the second opposite party acted in a negligent manner in the disbursement of the balance loan amount and released the amount though the construction was not in accordance with the terms of the construction agreement. The complainants list as follows the amounts paid by them to opposite party No.1: i) A sum of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lakhs only) is paid in cash on 4-8-2006. ii) A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) is paid by way of cheque on 4-8-2006. iii) A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) is paid in cash on 27-10-2006. iv) A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) is paid by way of cheque on 6-11-2006. v) A sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs only) is paid by way of cheque on 27-11-2006. vi) A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) is paid in cash on 12-1-2007. vii) A sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) is paid by way of cheque on 12-2-2007. viii) A sum of Rs.10,80,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs and Eighty thousand only) is paid by way of cheque on 26-4-2007.

(2.) The complainants further submit that opposite party No.1 failed to issue any receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- paid on 27-10-2006 and another Rs.1,00,000/- on 12-1-2006. opposite party No.1 in spite of receiving huge amounts of Rs.42,30,000/- towards cost of construction out of the total agreed amount of Rs.47,25,886/-, failed to construct the house in terms of the said construction agreement. They failed to complete the plumbing, electrical, water, drainage, flooring and also the common amenities and facilities. The complainants approached an independent valuer who is a civil engineer by profession, to estimate the total cost of the construction, he arrived at about Rs.14,00,000 which shows that opposite party No.1 spent only Rs.14,00,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.42,30,000/- received by opposite party No.1 from the complainants. It is therefore the complainants case opposite party No.1 received a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- in excess and is liable to return that amount with interest at 18% p.a. The complainants got issued a lawyer notice on 6-10-2007 demanding opposite party No.1 to pay the damages for deficiency in service and also for refund of the excess amount received, but did not receive any response. Hence the complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties i) To direct respondent No.1 to refund the excess amount of Rs.28,00,000/- with interest accrued thereon at the rate of 18% p.a. from 26-4-2007 till the date of realization. ii) To declare that the respondent No.2 is not entitled to claim the illegally disbursed amount of Rs.48,09,600/- from the complainants. iii) To direct the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards damages and compensation iv) To award costs of the complaint.

(3.) Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that they never persuaded the complainants to purchase the bungalow and deny that the complainants paid an amount of Rs. 22,24,000/- towards the cost of 556 sq. yds. Opposite party no.1 has nothing to do with the land owner and the land owner is alone entitled to receive the sale consideration of the land. This amount of Rs.22,24,000/- was paid to the land owner Smt.Anasuya Vallabh Sonpar as is evident from the sale deed dated 21-8-2006 and therefore the question of any amounts being paid to opposite party No.1 does not arise. Opposite party No.1 admits that the complainant entered into a construction agreement with it for a total consideration of Rs.47,25,886/- but deny an amount of Rs.18,90,400/- was released by opposite party no.2 to them towards cost of land. They also deny that they failed to issue receipts for Rs.1,00,000/- on 27-10-2006 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 12-1-2007 and that opposite party no.1 merely raised the structure and left it there.