RUKMANI YAMMA Vs. KIRLOSKAR INVESTMENT AND FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants are joint owners of property bearing No. 82, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001. The said property is described in the schedule at the end of the complaint. The respondent Company is engaged in business of property development and is a part of the Kirloskar Group of Companies. The complainants and the respondent entered into an agreement dated 1.1.1990 whereby the respondent undertook the construction of a residential apartment complex with a total built area of not less than 36,000 square feet on the vacant schedule property measuring 27,197 square feet. The respondent was to build the complex at its cost and allot 50% of the built area along with proportionate car parking space and other common areas, in consideration of the owners transferring 50% of their undivided interest in the land in favour of the respondent or its nominees. The respondent was to deliver possession of the owners share of the completed building within 25 months from the date of sanction of the building plan by the competent authority and time was agreed upon as being the essence of contract in this regard.

(2.) According to the complainant, the respondent acting as a developer provided its services to the complainants by construction of the apartment complex in which they were entitled to 50% of the built area. The respondents had committed several defaults under the agreement and on account of deficiency of service, this complaint has been filed.

(3.) According to the complainants even after a period of 1 year from the date of agreement, the respondent was still in process of obtaining sanctions and permissions from the statutory authorities and was yet to obtain sanction of plan of the proposed apartment complex. Besides this, the respondent had taken the responsibility of obtaining requisite clearance from the Reserve Bank of India in view of money payable to complainant No. 2 who is a non-resident Indian. By letter dated 31.12.1991,the respondent informed the complainants that the requisite sanctions and approvals have been taken from various authorities and as such, sought delivery of possession of the site in order to commence construction w.e.f. l.1.1992. By letter dated 6.1.1992, the respondent sought sketches indicating each individual share of the complainants indicating the owner s portion of the built area. According to the complainant, the construction should have been completed by the end of 1993 or early 1994 keeping in view that the plans were sanctioned on 2.7.1991 and RBI s permission in respect of payments to complainant No. 2 were obtained in November, 1991. The delay for construction was sought to be explained by OP on the ground of demand made by complainants for variation in the plans to be sanctioned for purposes of seeking permission from the Income Tax authorities and that there was delay on the part of the complainants in deciding about the number of units to be allotted. In addition, the respondent cited other reasons, namely, civil commotion arising out of the Cauvery river water dispute; shift of Government policy regarding cement, iron and steel; transport operators strike; and diversion of transport vehicles to Maharashtra for attending relief work subsequent to earth-quake in Maharashtra. Respondent also stated that the contractor was hospitalized and operated due to severe complications physiological problems on account of which, the work was held up. The respondent further added that since the City Corporation had not issued occupancy certificate on account of deviations to the sanctioned plan, the approvals from other agencies for water, power and sanitary connections, namely; the K.E.B., B.W.S.S.B., would be further delayed. According to the complainants, even though, the building was not complete in all respects by April, 1995, yet, the respondent managed to obtain occupancy certificate from the Bangalore City Corporation as per certificate dated 25.4.1995. In May, 1995, there was unprecedented boom in prices of real estate and land in Bangalore City due to which, the complainants were keen to obtain their share of the completed apartment complex to capitalize on the same. After repeated requests, even though, the building was not complete, the respondent in a move to avoid liability under the agreement demanded letter from the complainants as a condition precedent for putting the complainants in possession of their share of the built area. The respondent himself prepared a letter and the signatures of the complainants were obtained under duress and under extreme pressure. The complainants were compelled to execute the said letter on account of mounting financial commitments incurred by them in the expectation of such delivery of the apartment complex. In the letter, it was stressed as if the complainants themselves were at fault and the respondent stood absolved from all liability including the penalty clause for the delay in handing over of possession of the apartments. Thereafter, the respondent proceeded to handover some of the individual apartments to the complainants under cover of letters dated 26.7.1995 and 2.8.1995. The complainants had issued acknowledgements of such handing over of keys of the respective apartments, but immediately listed out the several pending works and deficiencies noticed upon a cursory examination of the said apartments, which were handed over The acknowledgements of the representative of the respondent were obtained on the said letters listing out the pending works, and defects. Afterwards, the complainant repeatedly followed up with the respondent for completion of the works but the respondent failed to carry out the same. On 10.2.1996, the respondent handed over the remaining apartments under cover of a letter. Even the said apartments suffered from the same defects and deficiencies. These apartments were handed over only in February, 1996, which goes to show that letter dated 25.7.1995 was obtained under duress even though the construction was incomplete.