NIKHIL RAMKRISHNA JAMBAULIKAR Vs. GIRDHARLAL MOHANLAL GANGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in services rendered by the Opposite Party arising from failure to delivery possession of built up premises contracted under an agreement dated 20 -05 -1996.

(2.) BRIEFLY , it is the Complainants case that he entered into an agreement dated 20 -05 -1996 with the Opposite Party for purchase of flat admeasuring 160 sq.mts on the second floor of the project at Penha de France (Britona) The parties entered into a second agreement on 12 -06 -1996 for purchase of two more flats in the Opposite Parties project at Calangute known as Bento Park . The agreement stipulated that the flats were to be delivered to the Complainant in all respects within 24 months from the date of execution of the agreement. In case the builder was unable to deliver possession within the stipulated time, the purchaser had the option to cancel the agreement and demand immediate refund of the money paid along with interest @ 24% p.a.

(3.) SINCE the Opposite Party was facing some difficulties with the Calangute, project on the advise of the Opposite Party, the Complainant cancelled the booking of the two flats at Calangute and the amount paid against the said flats was adjusted towards the purchase price of the flat at Penha de Franca. Even though possession was to be delivered in May 1998 the flat was not complete and the project was practically abandoned. Since the construction of the project at Penha de Franca was not progressing, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party and after discussions, the Opposite Party handed over cheque for Rs.2,40,000/ -and further seven post dated cheques for Rs.20,000/ -each towards compensation. The Opposite Party also undertook to delivery possession along with Occupancy Certificate on or before 31 -12 -1999. Thereafter, the Opposite Party requested the Complainant not to deposit the cheque of Rs.2,40,000/ - and to return the same to him, at which time the Opposite Party paid the said amount in cash. The Opposite Party also paid further amount of Rs.40,000/ - against two post dated cheques. The remaining five post dated cheques bounced due to insufficient funds. Possession of the flat was not delivered even as on date of filing of the complaint in October 2000 nor was there any possibility of delivering the same in the near future.