KETAN CONSULTANTS PVT LTD Vs. SANJIV P BANSOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Ketan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur are the appellants and Mr. Sanjiv and 2 others are respondents before us in this First Appeal No. 556/94. The facts of this case are very limited and precise. The respondents engaged the appellants to build and deliver two flats to them-one in the name of Mr. Sanjiv and the other in the name of his wife. The price agreed for these flats was Rs. 1,80,000/- each. The agreement for the delivery of the flats was entered into after the construction of the flats had started and the stipulation was that it shall be delivered within 18 months of the agreement. Although somewhat late, a temporary sort of possession was given to the respondents for doing Vaastu Puja and they were also allowed to do the furnishing of these flats. Meanwhile, the owner of the land on which the flats were built filed a suit against the appellant-M/s. Ketan Consultants saying that she has not been paid Rs. 2,00,000/- which was the price of the land. In the Suit No. 624/92 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, an injunction was issued restraining M/s. Ketan Consultants from handing over the flats to the purchasers who are the respondents before us. The net effect is that the respondents are not in possession of the flats for which they had made a total payment of Rs. 4,40,300/- as worked out by the State Commission.

(2.) The State Commission after going into the details of the contentions raised by the complainants and the respondents before them, came to the conclusion that there was definite deficiency on the part of M/s. Ketan Consultants and therefore, directed them to pay Rs. 4,40,300/- together with interest @ 18% per annum: they also directed the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- spent by the respondents towards the furnishing of the flats and a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with costs at Rs. 500/- vide their order dated 28-6-1994 in Complaint No. 582/92. The case of the appellant before us is that there was no deficiency on their part as they had delivered the key of the said flats to the respondents and that in the fear of contempt of the Civil Court order, as referred to above, the respondents themselves have not taken possession of the flats. In their grounds of appeal before us, the appellant-M/s. Ketan Consultants have very clearly stated "that due to pendency of the Suit No. 624/92 and the interim orders thereon, the appellant was not in a position to redeliver the possession of the said flats". That being the position now, the net result is that a definite date for possession cannot be fixed in view of the civil suit filed by the owner of the land against the appellants for non-payment of price of the land and the injunction order obtained by them. In such circumstances, it is quite fair and just that the appellant return the money they had taken from the respondents and that sum, as already mentioned, has been calculated on the basis of evidence before the State Commission at Rs. 4,40,300/-. The State Commission has also awarded 18% interest, which in the circumstances of this case, we do not consider to be unfair or unjust. The State Commission has further awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- which the respondents are reported to have spent on the furnishing of the flats when they were given possession for doing ceremonial Pooja, etc. We see no reason to interfere with the decision either. We may mention and make it clear that the complainants the respondents herein have not alleged any deficiency on the part of the land owner who was opposite party No. 2 either before the State Commission or before us. Hence, the deficiency is only in respect of M/s. Ketan Consultants who are the builders and who had received the amounts mentioned earlier from the respondents.

(3.) The interest shall be paid as directed by the State Commission from the last deposit made by the respondents till the date of payment to them.