Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1503/2019

M/s AMR Housing Development Corporation - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kiran G.Jannu - Opp.Party(s)

Shankar Gulli

03 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNAVAR      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

 

Appeal Nos. 1496/2019 to 1508/2019

 

1.  M/s. AMR Housing Development Corporation      Partnership firm having its Office at:      No.305/66, 2nd Floor, Above SMB bank,      2nd Main Road, 40th Cross,      Jayanagar 8th Block, Bangalore-560070      Rep. by its partner Manjunatha Reddy,      and also at: M/s. AMR OAKS      Sy.No.129/1, Lggaluru village,      Adjacent to KHB Surya City Phase-I,      Attibele Hobli, Anekal Tq., Bangalore 560099 2.  Manjunatha Reddy, S/o. Late Papa Reddy,      R/at No.14, 1st Floor, 14th Main,      HSR Layout, 5th Sector, Bangalore-34      Also at:  No.25, Elukunte,      Mangammanapalya , ITI layout,      Bangalore-560068 3.  Smt. S.V. Anusuyamma      W/o Manjunatha Reddy,      R/a No.14, 1st floor, 14th Main,      HSR layout, 5th sector, Bangalore-34      Also at:      No.25, Elukunte, Mangammanapalya ,      ITI layout, Bangalore-560068 Appellants are common in all the cases. (By Sri. Shankar Gulli) V/s	……Appellants
Appeal No.1496/2019 Sandeepani S/o. Srinivasa Upadhya, Aged about 29 years, Flat No.103, Block-4, LIG-4 Apartment, Suryacity, Chandapura, Bangalore-560081	..…Respondent
Appeal No.1497/2019 Manjunatha Achari K. S/o. Doraswamy Achari K., Aged about 32 years, Falt No.602 HB-HIG Apartments, Suryacity Phase-I, Chandapura, Anekal Road, Bangalore-560099	..…Respondent
Appeal No.1498/2019 1.  Venugopal Rao A.      S/o. Anand Rao,      Aged about 36 years,      R/a No.111/31, 2nd Main road,      Nanjappa Layout, Audugodi,      Bangalore-560073 2.  Smt.Shubhashini Rao.A.      W/o Venugopal Rao.A.,      Aged about 28 years,      R/a No.111/31, 2nd Main Road,      Nanjappa Layout, Audugodi,      Bangalore-560070	..…Respondents
Appeal No.1499/2019 1.  Ganesh Jagadish      S/o Jagadish.R.,      Aged about 31 years,      R/a No.24, Ground Floor,      Munireddy Building,      Chandapur Hosur Road,      Bangalore-560099 2.  Pradeep Jagadisha      S/o Jagadisha R.,      Aged about 34 years,      R/a No.34, Ground Floor,      Munireddy Building,      chandapura Hosur Road,      Bangalore-560099	..…Respondents
Appeal No.1500/2019 Ravindra Katakan S/o. K.V.B. Lingaiah, Aged about 40 years, House No.679, D Sector, Suryacity Phase-2, Chandapura, Anekal tq., Bangalore-560099	..…Respondent
Appeal No.1501/2019 Rathan Kumar Singade S/o Mohan, Aged about 33 years, No.S-25, 2nd floor, C block, Prabhavathi Heavens, 3rd Main, 1st Cross, SBI colony, Devarachikkanahalli Last Bus Stop, Bangalore-560076	..…Respondent
Appeal No.1502/2019 Smt.Manjula Basavachari M. W/o. Manjunatha C., Aged about 37 years, No.21, 1/A, Tushar Sweet Homes, 10th Cross, Keerthy Layout, Chandapura, Anekal Tq., Bangalore-560099	..…Respondent
Appeal No.1503/2019 Kiran G.Jannu S/o. Gangadar, Aged about 39 years, No.235, 11th Cross, 4th Main, BEML Layout, Basaveshwar Nagar, Bangalore-560079	..…Respondent
Appeal No.1504/2019 A. Balaji, S/o. Authimuthu S., Aged about 37 years, No.103, B2 Building, LIG-G Suryacity Phase-I, Chandapura, Anekal Tq., Bangalore-560099	..…Respondent
Appeal No.1505/2019 1.  Smt.Vijaya      W/o. S.Ganesh,      Aged about 32 years,      R/a No.003, B2 Building,      LIG-4, Suryacity Phase-I,      Chandapura, Bangalore-560099 2.  Ganesh      S/o. Shanmugam,      Aged about 34 years,      R/a No.003, B2 Building,      LIG-4, Suryacity Phase-I,      Chandapura, Bangalore-560099	..…Respondents
Appeal No.1506/2019 Poornesh.K..A. S/o Ananthmurthy K.P., Aged about 36 years, No.32M, Kridha Krupa, 6th Main, 1st Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-560078	..…Respondent
Appeal No.1507/2019 Sandeep Kishore Abbimane S/o Kishore Abbimane, Aged about 28 years, Flat No.006, Nandhini Lake View Apartment, Ramappa layout, Puttenahalli, J.P.Nagar 7th Phase, Bangalore-560078	..…Respondent
Appeal No.1508/2019 Mohammed Saheb Vaseen S/o. Munawer Pasha, Aged about 33 Years, No.3, Door No.5, 9th Main, 6th Cross, BTM Layout, 1st Stage, Bangalore-560029	..…Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH        : PRESIDENT

These appeals are filed by the OPs aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2017 passed in C.C.Nos. 1646, 1639, 1648, 1640, 1638, 1678, 1642, 1645, 1641, 1637, 1643, 1647 and 1644 all of the year 2016 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.

2. Since all these appeals are preferred by one and same appellants and the Law and facts involved in these cases are common, they are taken up together for consideration.
3. The brief facts of the case are : that the complainants entered into agreement of sale with OP Nos. 2 and 3 for 322 sq.ft. undivided right in the schedule A property and also entered into construction agreement dated 14.09.2013 with the OPs.  The complainants paid the amount in instalments to the OPs as agreed in the construction agreement and the OPs are liable to complete the construction of flat i.e., Schedule C property by the end of January 2015.  It is contended by the complainants that so far they have paid 86.3% of the construction cost to OPs.  Despite that the OPs failed to complete the construction and hand over possession.  After issuing legal notice, these complaints are filed seeking direction to OPs to complete the construction, hand over possession and also to pay compensation towards delay in construction and costs.
4. OPs admitting execution of construction agreement amongst other pleas pleaded that complainants did not paid the amount in order to complete the construction and due to objections raised by the BESCOM and BWSSB several times work is not completed and it is under process.  Further it is pleaded that payment of rent for non-completion of construction work is not in the terms and conditions of the agreement.  Hence, they are not liable to pay any interest or damages to the complainants.  Thus, sought dismissal of the complaint.
5. The commission below on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led in by both the parties allowed the complaint directing OP Nos. 1 to 3 to complete the construction and handover the apartment as agreed in terms of the agreements within six months from the date of order, failing which OP Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. from the date of complaint till handover of possession and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs.  Complaints against OP No. 4 is dismissed.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the DF, the OPs preferred these present appeals.  Heard the counsels for appellant as well as respondent.
7. It is the argument of appellants / developers that because of Covid-19 Pandemic they were not able to complete the construction on time and they also borrowed money from outside.  Despite their prompt efforts they were unable to complete the construction and complainants also have to pay the balance amount.  Accordingly, sought to allow the appeals and dismiss the complaint and also submitted that they need some more time to complete construction.
8. The objections of the complainants are that they made payment from time to time to the tune of 90%.  Only at the time of registration remaining 10% of amount has to be paid.  There is also delay on the part of the developer to put up construction though labour problem was not there and also they are taking undue advantages on the pretext of Covid-19. 
9. Admittedly, the impugned order passed by the District Forum on 31.10.2017.  This appeal is filed during 2019.  Covid-19 arose only in 2020.  Order is passed two years much before Covid-19 problem.  Let be that, problem of labour arose only during Covid-19 period not earlier.  On perusal of the order of the District Forum and also having heard, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum.  Since, for the past four years matter is pending and also no progress is made, the request for extension of time upto six months is rejected.  The OP has exploited the situation on one or the other reason.  There is no scope for interference except to direct the appellants/OPs to finalise the construction and to get it registered in the name of complainants.
10. However, considering the submission of counsel for appellants another four months time is granted from the date of receipt of this order to complete the construction and to get it registered.  The period of six months during Covid-19 is excluded and for the remaining period as ordered by the District Forum, OPs are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. as compensation till registration is completed.  Accordingly, the matters are disposed of.

 

 

3270399981102.  

 

 

JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

CV*