CONSTRUCTIONS REP, BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER POLAVARAPU SRINIVAS Vs. PARAVTHANENI MADHUSUDAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party is the appellant. The appellant is engaged in real estate business. The respondent entered into agreement with the appellant to purchase a flat and paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- on 27.7.2002. In the agreement the consideration was shown Rs.2,25,000/-. The appellant had collected an amount of Rs.4,45,000/- from the respondent. After completion of the flat no.305, the appellant handed over the same to the respondent. The respondent has filed the complaint contending that the construction of the flat was defective and there was seepage of water through the walls and the interior decoration maintained by the flat owners was damaged. The respondent got issued notice dated 24.7.2004 through his counsel requesting the appellant to rectify the defect. The appellant has received the notice and did not choose to give any reply. The appellant remained exparte.

(2.) Basing on the documents Exs.A1 to A8 and affidavit of the respondent, the District forum has allowed the complaint directing the appellant to rectify the seepage of water through the walls and roof of the flat no.305 of the respondent and on failure of the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- along with costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has come in appeal contending that it had no office at Eluru except for the period of construction and even as per the agreement, the address given is at Hyderabad. The District Forum has not ordered notice to the address to the appellant mentioned in Exs.A1, A2 and A4. The seepage to the respondents flat could have been due to the structural changes of the flat carried out by the respondent. The possession of the falt was delivered on 19.5.2003 to the respondent and the notice was got issued by the respondent on 24.7.2004. The respondent had on his own accord made structural changes to the flat which could have caused leakage to the flat. The appellant has not received any notice from the respondent and the acknoweldgeent thereof might have been created by the respondent with an intention to make a false claim. The District Forum has failed to consider that Ex.A7 postal acknowledgement does not contain the signature of any of the representatives of the appellant.