SIVALENKA KAMAKSHAMMA Vs. NISCHINT CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant entered into an agreement dated 2.2.1994 with the first opposite party for purchase of flat No. 102 of an area of 2,197 sq. ft. in the ground floor of ˜Ashwood Villa including undivided 100 sq. yards of land together with one parking place for a total consideration of Rs. 8,25,000/ -. She paid the entire consideration on 1.2.1994. But the opposite parties who are the Construction Company, its proprietrix and her husband respectively failed to complete the construction within 12 months as agreed or deliver possession of the same. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - for modifications and improvements as suggested by her in the apartment and obtained a receipt from the first opposite party on 25.3.1994. The third opposite party as G.P.A. executed a sale deed dated 20.5.1994 in favour of the complainant conveying the undivided share of 100 sq. yards. On raising protests by the complainant the third opposite party agreed to complete the construction in all respects and hand over the same by 31.12.1995 as per the minutes recorded in the meeting held on 5.9.1995. But he did not keep up his promise. Hence the complainant gave a notice on 25.5.1996 to the first opposite party seeking to complete the unfinished work immediately for which there was no reply. She filed O.P. No. 814/1996 before the District Forum and withdrew the same on 15.3.1999 with a view to seek more comprehensive reliefs and damages for an amount exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs. Subsequently the complainant filed C.D. No. 40/1999 before this Commission. She filed an application to amend the complaint and this Commission by its order dated 21.4.1999 permitted the complainant to withdraw the complaint with a liberty to file a fresh complaint. Hence she filed this complaint seeking in all a sum of Rs. 17,45,000/ - by way of damages against the opposite parties.

(2.) In the counter filed by the opposite parties while admitting the execution of the agreement of sale and receipt of Rs. 8,25,000/ -, denied payment of Rs. 1 lakh subsequently. It is further stated that the complaint is barred by time. C.D. No. 814/1996 filed by the complainant before the District Forum was dismissed and the appeal F.A. No. 222/1999 preferred by the complainant was also dismissed by this Commission at the admission stage on 10.5.1999. The complainant later filed C.D. No. 40/1999 in this Commission which was also dismissed as withdrawn keeping the question of limitation open. Not only that the complainants GPA filed W.P. No. 8971/1999 before the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and obtained interim directions on 29.4.1999 seeking stay of regularisation of deviations in the construction from the approved plan. Because of this and other W.P. No. 24188/1995 filed by her attorney the construction was delayed for which the opposite parties are not responsible. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement in case of any dispute. It is finally stated that the opposite parties are ready and willing to discharge their part of obligation subject to withholding of harassment and withdrawing of litigation by the complainant and her lawful Attorney.

(3.) The complainant filed Exs. A -1 to A -13 and affidavit of her G.P.A. The opposite parties filed the affidavit of the third opposite party and G.P.A. of opposite parties 1 and 2.