| ORDER | | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 29TH day of June, 2011 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.36 of 2011 Between: 1. Dammalapati Ramalingam, s/o. late Laxmaiah, age: 66 years, occu: Retd. Lecturer, r/o.H.No/ Flat NO.202, Bhavyasindhu Residency, Nehru Nagar, Khammam. 2. Talluru Ram Prabhakar, @ Rambabu, s/o. late Ramachandraiah, age: 45 years, occu: Business, r/o. H.No.11-8-192, Lenin Nagar, Khammam Town and District. …Complainants and M/s.S.R.S.R. constructions, Khammam, rep. by its Managing Partner, Adapa Rama Kotaiah, s/o. late Kistaiah, age: 65 years, H.NO.5-1-193/2, Kavirajnagar, behind R & B office, Wyra Road, Khammam. …Opposite party This C.C. is coming on before this Forum for final hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Nagaraju, Advocate for complainants; Notice of opposite party refused and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Forum passed the following:- ORDER (Per Sri.Vijay Kumar, President) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainants entered into development agreement cum General Power of Attorney on 12-3-2008 by way of registered document bearing No.2656/2008. Earlier the said development agreement cum General Power Attorney entered between the complainants and Kurucheti Ram Chandra Murthy, who was the then Managing partner of the opposite party firm, subsequently the said Ram Chandra Murthy retired and thereafter the opposite party became the managing partner to deal with the entire transaction. As per the development agreement cum GPA, the complainants are entitled to 31% of constructed area and the share of the developer is 69%, accordingly the total share of the land owners/ complainants is 7 flats as well as parking area for 7 cars. The total built up area is 31,145 sq. feet, out of which the landowner’s share comes to 9,654.95 sq. feet, whereas the opposite party had allotted 7 flats with constructed area of 8,772 sq. feet, falling short by 882.95 sq. feet to which the complainants are entitled as per development cum agreement. The present market value of the deficit built up area is around Rs.9,00,000/-. The opposite party promised to pay cash at the market rate prevailing, but failed to do so. The opposite party failed to comply with the stipulated terms and conditions in the development agreement cum GPA. On the other hand the opposite party No1 is entering into clandestine sale transaction of his share and trying to leave the jurisdiction of this forum. The opposite party has not complied the specifications and conditions mentioned in page No.25of Schedule C of development agreement. The opposite party did not finish wall care with acrylic emulsion paints for interior walls, marble or vitrified flooring, PVC pipes for drainage and water lines were used instead of GI pipes. The opposite party did not install the generator and did not construct compound wall on the front side with iron gates and also did not allot parking slots for the complainants. This act on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, due to which the complainants had subjected to lot of untold hardship and misery and underwent agony and as such they are entitled to damages of Rs.25,000/- each to the complainants. Therefore, the complainants pray to direct the opposite party either to deliver the possession of the flats of deficit built up area of 882.95 sq. feet or to pay Rs.9,00,000/- with interest at 12% P.A. and to pay damages of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.25,000/- each to the complainants) and to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- towards rent for four flats of each Rs.5,000/- for 16 months paid by the complainants for their residence. Hence, the complaint. Apart from the complaint, the complainant No.1 filed an affidavit, reiterating the contents of the complaint. In support of their contention the complainant filed the development agreement cum GPA dt.11-3-2008 and retirement deed, dt.8-5-2008. On being presenting the complaint, notices were ordered to the opposite party to put forth their case. But the notice of opposite parties refused to receive notice, even after refusal of notices, the case underwent a number of adjournments for the appearance of opposite party to file the counter and to contest the matter. Inspite of granting repeated adjournments there was no representation from the opposite party. Hence treated the matter as heard from opposite party side. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted his arguments. After hearing the arguments from the complainant side and after perusing the documents filed therein, now the points that arose for consideration are, 1. Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief as sought in the complaint? 2. To what relief? Point No.1: During the pendency of the complaint, a petition in I.A.34/2011 filed by the complainant to restrain the opposite parties from disposing of the property covered under the complaint. Inspite of sending notices, the opposite party did not care to attend the forum, at last a notice was issued to Sub-Registrar concerned not to execute the registered sale deed in respect of flats concerning to this case. The contents of development agreement cum GPA made crystal clear that the complainants have entered into an agreement on 12-3-2008 with opposite party through registered document, according to which the complainants are entitled to 31% whereas the opposite party is entitled to 69%. The complainants are allotted 7 flats out of the total built up area. The share of complainants comes to 9654.95 sq. feet, the allotted area is 8772 sq.feet, falling short by 882.95 sq. feet. This forum is rather compelled to hear the arguments of complainant side only. There was no representation from opposite party side. Despite of issue of notice, the opposite party refused to appear before the forum and to put forth their case. There is no alternate for this forum than to believe the arguments of complainants basing on the available documents. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint is fit to be allowed. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party either to deliver the deficit built up area of 882.95 sq. feet or to pay Rs.9,00,000/- together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of this order. Opposite party further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 29th day of June, 2011. PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM. APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE -Nil- PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM. | |
