This Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant. Petitioner filed the complaint seeking a direction to the respondent opposite parties to execute the sale deed pertaining to Flat No.102, first floor and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from August 2000 to April 2001 towards penalty for delay in handing over the possession of the flat and to pay interest at the rate of 20% per annum on Rs.2 lakh from December 2000 to April 2001 towards advance payment of the said amount and to complete all pending works and to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakh and costs of the Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner had purchased the above flat, which was initially offered by Respondent No.1 for Rs.8 lakh but, later the price was escalated to Rs.9.2 lakh stating that some extra amenities will be provided. As per agreement, Rs.3,20,000/- lakh were to be paid at the time of taking the possession. Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.8,11,101/- apart from Rs.40,000/- paid on 2.1.2000 towards registration charges. According to the petitioner, the respondent delayed giving the possession of the flat. Thus, being aggrieved, he filed the complaint. District Forum partly allowed the complaint. It was held that opposite party No.1 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,51,700/- approx. under various heads minus Rs.1,08,899/-, i.e., Rs.42,801/- to respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to pay to the opposite parties the balance amount of Rs.3,06,000/- within 6 weeks from the date of passing of the order. State Commission has recorded the following finding : “It is to be seen that the respondent/complainant has admitted that he has paid a sum of Rs.8,11,101/- and has to pay a sum of Rs.1,08,809/- to the appellants/opposite parties. But it is the case of the appellants that the respondent/complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- since the appellants have done additional works in addition to the works mentioned in the agreement, as per the request made by the respondent/complainant and hence the respondent/complainant has to pay the sum of Rs.3,06,000/-. The appellants have also submitted that since the respondent/complainant has not paid the balance amount and took illegal possession of the flat they have filed a private complaint and also civil suit before the civil court. The respondent/complainant has also filed a counter in the suit wherein he has clearly stated that he has filed a complaint before the District Forum and he has also taken a demand draft for Rs.3,06,000/- in the name of the President, District Forum, Hyderabad and that the District Forum directed him to pay the said sum of Rs.3,06,000/- to the appellants/opposite parties but the said sum was not paid by the respondent/complainant.” The finding recorded by the State Commission is unexceptional in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner before the civil court that the petitioner is taking a Demand Draft of Rs.3,06,000/- to be paid to the respondent. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Dismissed.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | |
