BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD

F.A.No.134 OF 2008 AGAINST C.V.No.1063 OF 2005 DISTRICT FORUM-IIVISAKHAPATNAM

Between:

1. Viral Constructions, a Proprietory Concern
   rep. by its Proprietor Mulagadda Samba Murthy
   S/o M.M.Rao, D.No.49-35-22, NGGO’s Colony
   Visakhapatnam
2. Mulagada Samba Murthy S/o M.M.Rao
   Hindu, Aged 50 years, Builder R/o D.No.49-35-22
   NGGOs Colony,Visakhapatnam.
   
   

A N D

Maroju Venkata Rao S/o Suryanarayana
Hindu, aged 69 years, Retd.LIC Employee
R/o Flat B High Place Visakhapatnam.

Counsel for the Appellants                   Counsel for the Respondent                  

QUORUM:  

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

THURSDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                                       1.     

2.      `1,50,000/- on 3.5.2003 to the opposite party no.1 and thereafter on various dates the complainant paid a total amount of`4,89,568/- inclusive of`1,50,000/-.     

3.    `4,45,068/- out of`6,40,000/- and failed to pay the balance amount. `4,89,568/- as if he paid the said amount to the opposite parties. To cover the latches on the part of the complainant, he created some documents as if he issued letters to the opposite parties.   

4.     5.    `4,45,068/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 3.1.2005 till the date of payment along with compensation of`75,000/- and costs.

6.    `75,000/- towards compensation is excessive.

1)               Whether the complainant has paid the entire amount to the opposite parties?

2)               Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3)               To what relief?

7.       `1,50,000/- on 3.5.2003 while entering into an agreement of construction with the opposite party no.1 and he had paid on various dates ranging from 3.5.2003 till 16.6.2005 a sum of`4,89,568/- which include the initial payment of`1,50,000/-.  `4,45,068/- out of the total amount of`6,40,000/-.  

8.    `6,40,000/- to be paid by the complainant in progressive manner,`1,50,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement and the balance amount of`4,90,000/- in the following manner:

                      `1,50,000/-

                `  50,000/-

                    `                  `                    `                 `         

               `                          `                          `          

                                        `                                                                                                           `                                                                9.     

10.   `1,33,000/- through cheque No.836948 acknowledged under receipt dated 20.5.2003,`50,000/- through receipt dated 12.10.2004,`35,000/- by receipt dated 1.5.2003,`17,000/- under receipt dated 17.5.2003,`25,000/- on 6.4.2005 and`10,000/- on 4.5.2005 borne by the receipt dated 6.4.2005,`9,500/- under receipt dated 16.6.2005.  `4,29,500/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite partyno.1.  `4,89,568/- inclusive of registration charges and despite the repeated requests of the complainant the construction of the flat was not completed which caused inordinate delay due to the attitude of the opposite party no.1 as the stage wise construction was not in consonance with the terms of the agreement.

10.   `3,93,000/- out of`6,40,000/-  `4,45,068/- out of`6,40,000/-.  The opposite parties failed to show the stage of construction proportionate to the amount paid by the complainant.   

       `4,45,068/- with interest @ 12% per annum together with`75,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.   `75,000/- granted towards compensation and uphold the rest of the order.

        `75,000/- while upholding the rest of the order.   

KMK*