BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 32 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO. 530 OF 2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I VISAKHAPATNAM
Between
Sri Pithani Bala Bhaskara Venkateswara Rao
S/o narasimha Murthy, Hindu, aged 44 years,
Employee, R/o D.No.58-28-15/1, Gandhi Nagar
Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam-530 027
Appellant/complainant
M/s Satyam Constructions
Rep. by its Proprietor,
Sri Mandava Venkata Ranga Rao
S/o Mallikharjuna Rao, Hindu
aged 40 years Flat No.S-4, Siri Enclave
Old Karasa, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-016
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-
The appellant applied to ICICI Bank Limited and got sanctioned the loan for a sum of Rs.7,43,829/- on 27.6.2008 and he had shown it to the respondent requesting it to furnish the copies of the documents for release of the loan amount.
The proprietor of the respondent firm has explained the Sub-Inspector the entire transaction
1) Whether the appellant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
2) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
POINTS NO.1 AND 2
The appellant has paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- on the date of execution of the Construction Agreement.
In the absence of any other document to refer for the mode of payment of the balance sale consideration, the construction agreement is the sole document to be relied upon.
AND WHEREAS the Builder agreed to undertake the construction
Booking Advance
Balance
at the time of registration and during course of construction” gives rise to the ambiguity on which the appellant has been harping on to contend that instalments and payment thereunder have not been fixed nor was there any understanding in this regard.
The payment of Rs.50,000/- in the month of December 2007 itself is no indication that the stipulated amount has to be paid in restricted course of time. The respondent refers to the payment of the sale consideration in phased manner in terms of the norms laid by the government, such as an amount of 25% at the time of foundation, an amount of 40% on the total cost of the flat at the time of lintel level and 60% on the total cost of the flat at the time of roof level and 80% on the total value of the flat for the semi-finished flat.
th
The appellant has got issued reply through his advocate on 27.8.2008 to the effect that the appellant requested the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration amount in instalments and from the date of execution of the construction agreement the appellant was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration.
The contention of the respondent is that as the appellant had already availed of housing loan, he could not obtain any further house loan.
The three aspects of the transaction, first, the respondent relying on Ex.B2 which is styled as a letter said to have been executed by the appellant as against the copy of sale deed dated 19.3.2008 meant to show that the construction was completed in the month of March 2008, secondly, the acceptance of the offer of the appellant by the respondent that post dated cheques be received in lieu of the balance sale consideration which was hedged with a rider by the respondent that the fact of the issuing post dated cheque be mentioned in the sale deed and thirdly, the refusal of the respondent only on the ground that he was put to mental tension by the appellant who offered to pay an extra amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, would establish the fact that the appellant committed default in payment of the balance sale consideration and equally it can be said that the respondent had not cancelled the allotment of the flat.
In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 8.12.2008 passed by the District Forum.
KMK*
