KARTHIK HOMES Vs. MANVIZHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party in COP No.9/2006, on the file of District Forum, Chennai (North), having suffered an adverse order dt.11.3.2010, challenges the same in this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts unavoidable for disposal of this case: The respondent/complainant had agreed to purchase a Super structure builtup area of 700 sq.ft., for the cost of Rs.7,50,000/-, from the opposite party builder/developer. A regular sale deed was executed for the undivided share for Rs.1,25,860/-, which is included in the above said price. As per the agreement, the project should have been completed by August 2005, and possession should be handed over to the complainant. The opposite party, though collected the entire amount, as per the agreement, demanding further amount of Rs.3,30,000/-, refused to handover the possession of the property, thereby committed deficiency, as well as negligence. For the flat cost, which was fixed at Rs.750000/-, the complainant had infact paid a sum of Rs.9,44,970/-. Because of the failure to handover the possession, committing deficiency, legal notice was issued, which also failed to evoke the opposite party to handover the vacant possession, thereby the complainant is constrained to file the case, not only for vacant possession, but also for the recovery of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, for pain and suffering, including mental agony, as compensation.

(3.) The opposite party, admitting the agreement, between the parties, as well as the price fixed for the super structure, resisted the case contending that the consideration for the undivided share was fixed at Rs.1,25,860/-, and the total cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.750000/-, that the opposite party though paid some amount, for which the receipts were issued, has not paid the balance of construction cost of Rs.2,70,000/-, as well as cost of EB deposit, Metro water deposit, amounting to Rs.60375/- totaling a sum of Rs.3,30,375, and that the total cost of the flat, including the land was not Rs.7,50,000/- as claimed, whereas it was fixed to Rs.869770/- and since the opposite party failed to pay the balance possession, was not given, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service, that for the recovery of the amount, since a suit has been filed before the city civil court, the complaint is not maintainable, praying for the dismissal of the case, denying the other averments also.