(Delivered on 17/04/2018)

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         This complaint is filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.         The case of the complainant Nos. 1&2 as set out  in the complaint  in brief is an under:-

            The opposite party (for short O.P.) is  a builder and  it is indulged  in activity of the construction  of the flats, shops and bungalows  and it offers the same to the  general public for sale. The complainants  wanted to  purchase  one bungalow described in detail  in the complaint, from the O.P.  The price of the said bungalow was fixed at Rs. 35,00,000/- and agreement was entered  into  between both the parties about  the aforesaid transaction on 18/12/2014. The complainants  paid  total consideration of Rs. 32,50,000/-  out of Rs. 35,00,000/-. However, the O.P. did not complete the construction as per agreement and failed to deliver the possession of the same as agreed. The complainant then issued notice dated 20/12/2017 to the O.P. The O.P. received the same  but did not give reply to that notice and did not act upon the said notice.  Therefore, the complainants  filed the present complaint  against the O.P. alleging  unfair trade practice  against the O.P. and claiming  direction to the O.P.  to execute the sale deed  of the bungalow  described in the complaint and to give  its possession  to them  with all necessary documents and also to pay  them cost of complaint.

3.         This Commission issued notice of the complaint along with compilation of the complaint to the O.P. on 19/06/2017. The said notice along with compilation of complaint  was  given humdust to the advocate of the complainant on 21/06/2017 for service to the O.P by Registered Post A.D. Accordingly,  the same was sent  to the O.P. by Registered Post A.D. This Commission received acknowledgement  about service of notice to the O.P.  The said acknowledgement  is duly signed by the O.P.  The O.P. failed to appear despite service of that notice. Therefore,  as per order dated 11/08/2017 this complaint is  proceeded exparte against the O.P.

4.         The  advocate of the complainant  filed written notes of argument  along with  authorities.  We have heard learned advocate  Mr. J.C. Shukla appearing for the complainants and perused the entire record & proceedings of the complaint.

5.         The  learned advocate Mr. J.C. Shukla invited  our attention  to the copies of  agreement , money receipts , demand notice, certificate issued by the O.P. and statement of  account  as filed  in support of the complaint  and submitted that  as the  complaint and  said documents  went unchallenged,  the complaint  may be  allowed.

6.         We find substance in the aforesaid  submission of the learned advocate of the complainants.  The copy of  agreement of sale  executed by the O.P. in favour of the complainants  proved that  the O.P. had agreed  to sale bungalow described in the  complaint  for total consideration  of Rs. 35,00,000/-, and  the payment of balance   consideration  was to be made as per terms and conditions  of the agreement particularly as per the stages of the construction  shown  in para No. 3 of the said agreement.  

7.         Moreover, as per para No. 22 of the  agreement  the construction  of the bungalow  was required to be  completed  within a period of  18 months from the date of  that  agreement.  However, the construction is  not completed. The receipts of the payment made by the complainants to the O.P. are also filed.  Moreover, bank account statement is also filed and  documents of the bank are also filed showing  that  the  bank  granted loan  of Rs. 24,50,000/- to the complainants  and said  amount is paid  by the bank to the O.P. through N.E.F.T.  Moreover, the  O.P. has not  given reply to the  notice of the complaint  which also shows that  there is no defence of the O.P.

8.         Thus, the aforesaid documents  fully support  the claim made  in the complaint. We therefore, hold that  the O.P.  has adopted unfair trade practice  by not performing  its contract as per terms and conditions  mentioned in the agreement  and by not giving  possession  of the bungalow along with sale deed to the complainant  despite of receiving huge part of consideration  of Rs. 32,50,000/- from him.  At this stage the advocate of the complainant  submitted that  the complainants are ready to  pay balance  consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the O.P. at the  time of  sale deed. The complaint  thus  deserves to be allowed  as under.

ORDER

i.          The complaint  is  allowed as under.

ii.          The opposite party (for short  O.P.) is  directed to  hand over the possession  of the bungalow  described  in  the complaint, complete  in all respect as per agreement  to the complainants and to  execute the sale deed  of the said bungalow in their favour  by accepting  balance consideration  of Rs. 2,50,000/- at the time of  execution of the sale deed.

iii.         The complainants shall bear expenses of the execution and registration of the sale deed.

iv.        The opposite party (for short O.P.) shall pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.

v.         The opposite party  shall also  pay compensation  of Rs. 25,000/- to the  complainant  for  physical and mental  harassment.

vi.        Copy of order be furnished to  both the parties, free of cost.