CAMA BUILDERS Vs. RAGHAVAN GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the opposite party, is directed against the order dated 26.6,2001 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by which order the State Commission refused the application of the petitioner herein to set aside its order dated 6.5.1997 which was passed on merit of controversy between the parties. In the impugned order dated 26.6.2001 State Commission had said that the application was for review and that the State Commission had no power to review its order, application was, therefore, dismissed. State Commission also noticed that the application for review was filed after delay of about four years. We do not find it is necessary for us to consider the order dated 26.6.2001. We have heard Mr. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioner on the merit of the controversy as well.

(2.) Petitioner is builder. The two complainants who are respondents before us are husband and wife. Petitioner entered into an agreement dated 26.9.1992 for sale of undivided share in the land in which he was building a property. On the same day he entered into an agreement for sale of a flat in that building measuring 1260 sq. ft. Agreed consideration was Rs. 5.00 lakhs. An amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh was paid by the respondents by means of cheque dated 30.3.1993. Respondents borrowed a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakhs from the Life Insurance Corporation of India with interest @ 17.5% per annum. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 3,00 lakhs was paid to the petitioner on 31,5.1993 and another sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh on 6.9.1993. Thus total consideration of Rs. 5.00 lakhs was paid. Petitioner was to give the completed flat by the end of 1993. This was not done and he went on seeking extension time and again and the complainants went on reminding him. Non- delivery of the flat was causing high burden on the complainants because they had taken loan from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and wanted to shift to their own flats. Therefore, they knocked the door of the State Commission seeking refund of Rs. 5.00 lakhs with interest @ 17.5% and Rs. 2.00 lakhs towards damages and mental tension. State Commission in its order noticed that despite several attempts made on the petitioner he remained absent and ultimately on 14.10.1996 he was proceeded ex-parte. After considering the affidavit of the second complainant, wife of the first complainant, and the documents. State Commission passed the order directing refund of Rs. 5.00 lakhs with interest @ 18% per annum from the respective dates of payment. It awarded further sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh towards damages for harassment caused to the complainants. State Commission also awarded cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainants.

(3.) Considering the whole aspect of the matter, we do not find any error in the judgment dated 6.5.1997 of the State Commission. We, therefore, dismiss this petition finding no ground for review of the order dated 26.6.2001 of the State Commission. Petition dismissed. _______________