TRILOCHAN SINGH Vs. PUSHPA BUILDERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the complainant, in the present complaint in brief, is that opposite party No.1 is a builder of residential and commercial complexes in Delhi and opposite party No.2 is the Chairman-cum Managing Director of opposite party No.1. The complainant in response to an advertisement and exhibition held by opposite parties, booked a Residential Apartment/flat in the Pushp Deep Apartment Scheme, at West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The complainant was duly allotted a residential flat No. A-1, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi in the abovesaid scheme, by the opposite parties vide letter dated 11.10.1989. At the request of the complainant, the opposite parties reduced the price of the said apartment/flat and it was agreed mutually that the flat allotted to the complainant would be offered to him by the opposite parties at the revised cost of Rs.7,38,000/-, which amount was to be paid in instalments by the complainant, as per the schedule fixed by the opposite parties. The complainant paid the entire sale consideration in respect of the aforesaid flat allotted to him by the opposite parties and had further paid another sum of Rs.1,43,000/- as demanded by the opposite parties on account of registration of sale deed, water connection and electric connection, etc. plus other miscellaneous works. The opposite parties issued receipts for the total cost of the apartment paid in instalments from time-to-time but despite repeated requests of the complainant, failed to issue receipts for the said amount of Rs.1,43,000/-.

(2.) The grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that though the apartment allotted to him was completed and habitable since 1996 and despite payment of the entire cost of the flat/apartment as well as the registration and other incidental charges totalling Rs.8,24,000/-, the opposite parties have failed to execute the sale deed and deliver the possession of the apartment/flat to him, despite assurances in that regard by opposite party Nos.1 and 2. In the present complaint, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to deliver the possession of the flat No. A-1, First Floor, Pusp Deep Apartment, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages alongwith the costs of the proceedings.

(3.) The opposite parties were duly served and Mr. Amit Roy, Law Officer/authorised Representative of both the opposite parties appeared before this Commission, but despite several opportunities being afforded, the opposite parties failed to pay the costs imposed on them or to file written version/reply and evidence on their behalf. Therefore, the right of the opposite parties to file their written version was closed vide order dated 31.1.2000. Thereafter, the complainant filed his own affidavit by way of evidence in support of the averments made in the complaint.