MUKESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. KRISHNA BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 3.8.2007 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called as "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No. 197/2005, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein was allowed partly and having been dissatisfied with the order, he has preferred this appeal. For convenience, the complainant will be referred as appellant hereinafter and the OP Builder will be referred as respondent.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that there was an agreement between the appellant and the respondent for sale of a plot and thereafter an agreement for construction of house thereon, was also entered into. Respondent is a builder and developer of residential colonies who published an advertisement in newspaper for development of residential colony named as "Krishna Vihar Residential Colony". Having been influenced by the advertisement, the appellant booked a house for which he entered into a sale deed with father of the proprietor of the respondent, as per document A -3 and also an agreement as per document A -4, between the appellant and the respondent was entered into for construction of the house and development. As per averment of the appellant, in his complaint before the District Forum, he had made payment as per schedule mentioned in the said agreements document A -4, and the respondent was required to handover possession of the house with development on 30.10.2003 which he failed to do so. Thereafter the appellant along with other purchasers also entered into another agreement on 7.10.2004 with respondent as per document A -5. Even then, the constructed house, as per second agreement, was not handed over to the appellant and as such respondent committed deficiency in service. Direction to the respondent to hand over fully constructed house as per document A -4, failing which, to return the deposited amount with interest were sought by the appellant in the complaint. Compensation for deficiency in service along with further compensation for unfair trade practice Rs. 1,00,000/ - was also claimed. Direction to the respondent to abstain from such practice in future was also sought.

(3.) THE respondent in its reply before the District Forum admitted that sale deed and agreement between both the parties were executed but the appellant failed to make payment as per terms of the agreement and thereby caused financial loss. Since the appellant did not make payment as per schedule of the agreement, the construction work and development was delayed. Respondent also averred that construction work was overall completed. Appellant had filed the complaint before District Forum pointing out deficiencies exaggerately to misguide the Forum. Respondent also averred that Community Development like construction of WBM road from main road to colony had been done whereas the access road dispute, was pending before Civil Court as such tar road could not be made. For the purpose of electricity supply, agreement had been made with C.S.E.B. and transformer which could not be arranged due to administrative reasons, would soon be installed. For the purpose of overtank, agreement with Gurumukh Creative Construction Company had been entered into. Due to non -payment of amount by the appellant the respondent had to complete the construction with enhanced prices. The appellant had also got done additional construction work for which respondent had to bear financial loss. The appellant was not entitled for any relief and due to non -payment of amount as per agreement the respondent was ready to refund the collected amount, in respect of property in question after deducting 30% of the amount collected?