SUDHIR KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. JAIN CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 13.1.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred for short as "District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 71/2007, whereby the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant had entered into an agreement on 15.1.2004 for the purpose of construction of a flat No. 103 of area 450.85 sq.ft. in a multi -storeyed residential complex Mahavir Apartment Tower under Apartment Ownership Act, 1976 from O.P. builder, cost of which was prescribed for Rs. 3,80,000. Complainant averred that he paid Rs. 7,000 to O.P. towards agreement and also paid charges of registration. Complainant further averred that, in terms of agreement, Rs. 63,400 were deposited on 15.1.2004 and balance of Rs. 3,17,000 was deposited by way of bank loan. Complainant averred that despite payment of Rs. 4,57,000 O.P. did not provide possession of constructed and duly developed flat, till the date of filing complaint, which amounted to deficiency in service. Complainant averred that he reminded O.P. many times orally and also in writing but was of no avail. Complainant prayed before the District Forum for seeking direction to O.P. to provide possession of completed and developed flat with compensation of Rs. 1.22,000 along with interest @ 12% p.a. with cost.

(3.) O .P. in its reply denied that registration charges Rs. 7,000 were paid by the complainant. O.P. averred that cost of the flat, sold to the complainant, was prescribed for Rs. 3,80,000 out of which Rs. 63,400 were deposited by him as margin money towards loan, and Rs. 3,17,000 was financed by bank. O.P. averred that the complainant had taken possession of the flat two years after its due inspection by the bank and having made payment of prescribed amount in full satisfaction. O.P. averred that the complainant got the amount financed from State Bank of India, Railway Branch, so the Bank was also a necessary party in the case. O.P. has denied that Rs. 4,57,000 was paid by the complainant. O.P. has averred that the complainant has got additional construction of one toilet for which Rs. 10,000 are payable and also along with Registry charges Rs. 7,000, total Rs. 17,000 is recoverable from him . O.P. averred that despite promise to pay the aforesaid amount he did not pay the same and filed complaint on false ground seeking compensation of Rs. 1,22,000. OP averred that complaint of the complainant is also barred by limitation. OP has averred that the case of the complainant is a matter requiring elaborate evidence and, therefore, it was not maintainable before a Consumer Fora. OP averred that it had not committed any deficiency in service, as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed.