This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 07-02-12 in the presence of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, advocate for complainant and opposite party remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-    The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking RS.17,32,000/- towards the left over works in three flats; Rs.1,80,000/- for delayed work; Rs.75,000/- as compensation.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant, Guttikonda Ramatulasi and Kota Venugopala Reddy on 19-06-07 entered into a registered Development Agreement/General Power of Attorney with the opposite party.   The opposite party agreed to handover three flats to the complainant as per specification mentioned in Annexure 1/A of the agreement.   The complainant and others handed over the flats to the opposite party on the date of agreement itself.   The opposite party has to obtain plans from UDA VGTM, Mangalagiri for construction of residential flats and complete the construction of proposed residential flats within 18 months with a grace period of three months from the date of approval of plan.  The opposite party further agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- pm., for each flat if not completed even after the grace period.   The opposite party secured sanction of the plan from UDA VGTM office in December, 2007 and started construction of residential flats.   The opposite party sold away nine flats to prospective purchasers and executed registered sale deeds.    The opposite party constructed silt, ground floor, floors-I to IV upto roof level and left without completing the construction in January, 2011.   The opposite party gave evasive replies for the demands made by the complainants.   The Surveyor estimated the value of unfinished works at Rs.5,74,000/- for each flat.   Non completion of the flats by the opposite party even after the expiry of grace period amounted to deficiency of service.  On account of such attitude of the opposite party the complainant suffered a lot and is entitled to get compensation for agony, inconvenience and harassment. 

3.    Opposite party after receipt of summons remained exparte for the reasons best known to him. 

4.     Exs.A-1 to A-16 were marked on behalf of the complainant.   

5.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.17,22,000/- towards unfinished works?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.3,000/- pm for the delayed period per each flat?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
5.  To what relief?

6.    POINT No.1:-    Ex.A-1 is the photostat copy of registration extract of Development Agreement between the complainant, others and the opposite party.  Ex.A-1 revealed that the complainant and her co-owners delivered possession of vacant site to the opposite party on the date of agreement itself i.e., 19-06-07.   Ex.A-1 further revealed that the complainant is entitled for flat No.3 in ground floor and flat Nos.1 and 2 in IV floor.   VGTM UDA gave permission to construct silt floor parking with V floors (15 apartments) on 04-04-08 as seen from Ex.A-15 and A-16.   The relevant clauses in Ex.A-1 are extracted below for better appreciation:

7.     Ex.A-1 further revealed that the opposite party agreed to deliver constructed flats as specified in it within twenty one months including grace period i.e., by 04-01-2010.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party left without constructing the flats as specified in Ex.A-1.   The contents of the affidavit of the complaint are deemed to have been proved as the opposite party remained exparte.   The above conduct of the opposite party amounted to deficiency of service.   We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainant. 

8.   POINT No.2:-       The complainant in order to prove the cost of unfinished works filed affidavit of one Reddy Hanumantha Rao, Surveyor and architect along with estimation (Ex.A-3 to A-5).  The affidavit of the said Surveyor and architect revealed that the value of unfinished works is Rs.17,22,000/- for three flats.   Exs.A-3 to A-5 and the affidavit of the said architect remained unchallenged. Therefore awarding Rs.17,22,000/- (Rs.5,74,000x3) towards unfinished works left over by the opposite party will meet ends of justice.  We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainant.

9.   POINT No.3:-   As per clause 5 of the terms mentioned in Ex.A-1 the opposite party is under an obligation to pay Rs.3,000/- pm per each flat for the delayed period i.e., from 04-04-10 onwards.   We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainant. 

10.   POINT No.4:-   No doubt the complainant was put to inconvenience and hardship for not completing the construction as specified in Ex.A-1 by the opposite party.  In view of clause 5 of the terms mentioned in Ex.A-1 awarding Rs.10,000/- as damages towards deficiency of service will meet ends of justice.   We therefore answer this point accordingly in favour of the complainant.

11.  POINT No.5:- In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.17,22,000/- (Rupees Seventeen lakhs twenty two thousand only) towards the unfinished works in three flats together with interest @9% p.a., from 04-01-10 till realisation.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- pm per each flat for the delay from 04-01-10 onwards till filing the complaint.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
4. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and in case of failure the amount ordered in clause 2 will carry interest @9% p.a.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 16^th day of February, 2012.

MEMBER                            MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:     NIL 

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT