RAMESH N. THAKKAR Vs. ASLAM MUNJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASLAM Munjee is an Indian resident in U.S.A. for very many years. He decided to come back to India and with that end in view entered into an agreement on 30th December, 1994 with the appellants to purchase a dwelling unit in Pune. He was aged 64 years at that time. According to him, he was verbally assured that the dwelling unit will be ready towards February, 1995. However, the agreement records "on or before December, 1996 approximately" as the time for delivery of the dwelling unit. There is a schedule of - payment set out in the agreement for the purchase price of the dwelling unit. If there is a delay in payment, the purchaser had to pay interest at 18% for the delayed period. The case of the complainant is that since he was resident in U.S.A. and it was not possible for him to come frequently to India, he paid the entire purchase price, barring a small amount which had to be paid at the time of taking 'possession, well before the scheduled date. His case is that he, apart from the agreed amount stated in the written agreement, - paid Rs. 4,27,000/ - in cash under the table according to the prevailing practice in India.

(2.) UNFORTUNATELY , the dwelling unit was not ready, which, according to the complainant should have been ready by early 1995 according to the verbal assurance of the builder or by December, 1996, the time mentioned in the written agreement. The complainant who had come back with his entire belonging after 31 years stay in U.S.A. was put in great difficulty. The builder however provided him with a one room flat for the - period during which the dwelling unit was not ready for possession. The complainant has stated that the alternative accommodation which was given was very bad. He could not sleep. The noise around him was unbearable and he could not continue writing the book which he had undertaken to write in the temporary accommodation. Ultimately, the petitioner was able to move into the dwelling unit constructed for him on May 28, 1997. At the time, he moved in, he noted several defects which the builder's representative stated will be corrected immediately. Several of the tiles of the flat were broken especially in the bath room. The workmanship in plaster was poor and various materials used were shoddy and the door frames and the doors were very poor in quality. There was water leakage from the ceiling in the kitchen living room and the alcove. The lift went out of order as soon as the complainant moved in. He wrote several letters of complaint immediately after moving into possession and ultimately lodged the complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune on July 15, 1997.

(3.) THE respondent has denied all the allegations. They have admitted that they were certainly late because of unavoidable circumstances. They have, however, pleaded in mitigation that they provided the complainant with an alternative accommodation during the period he could not be given a flat.