KUMAR R PRIOLKAR Vs. REAL ESTATE AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainants have filed the present complaint alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and have claimed refund of the amount Rs.7,00,000/ - being the price of the land along with cost of stamp paper, registration fees, interest as well as compensation totalling to Rs. (7,70,060.00 + Rs.6,71,992.00 ).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated it is the case of the complainants that they executed Deed of Sale dated 16.8.2001 with the opposite parties by which they purchased a plot of land admeasuring 231 sq. mts. out of the property bearing Chalta No.48 of P. T. Sheet No.115 at Miramar, Panaji - Goa for a price of Rs.7,00,000/ -. By letter dated 10.10.2001, the complainants called upon the opposite party No.1 (b) to transfer the Municipal and Planning and Development Authority licences; however, the same was not complied with the complainants were unable to commence construction of their Bungalow on the said plot. The complainants also come to know that there was a proposed road passing through the plot purchased by them and that the Planning and Development Authority had restrained the opposite parties from commencing any construction activities in the said plot. Opposite party No.2 had also filed an application before Superintendent of Surveys and Land Records for stay of the order passed by the Inspector of Surveys and Land Records whereby the names of the opposite party No.1 was included in the Survey Records pertaining to the said property; the stay order came to be granted by the said Appellate Authority by its order dated 25.7.2002. Opposite party No.2 had also made an application to Panjim Municipal Council alleging that the opposite party No.1 had encroached on to their property, and the Municipal Council had directed the opposite party No.1 vide its order dated 6.2.2002 to stop all construction work in Chalta No.48 sold to the complainants. As a result of the above, the complainants were unable to commence any construction in the said property and thereby put to great financial loss.

(3.) THE opposite party No.1 sold a portion of the eight metre wide approach road to the complainants which was actually meant for approach road for opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 sold the said plot under Chalta No.48 to the opposite party No.2 and knowingly again sold the same land to the complainants and, therefore, adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.