GIRDHARLAL MOHANLAL GANGANI Vs. SUJAY SUDHAKAR URCHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed by the builder who was opposite party No. 1 before the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission). These appeals are against the orders dated 22.12.2000 in complaint No. 16/2000 and dated 10.12.2000 in complaint No. 15/2000 of the State Commission. Though these appeals arise out of two different orders of the State Commission but they relate to same building; similar agreement; same type of two complaints and judgments of State Commission proceeding in the same vein giving similar reliefs. In F.A. No. 46/2001 there were two complainants husband and wife and in F.A. 48/2001 complainant was first respondent only. Other two respondents in both these appeals are the owners of the land on which building was to be constructed by the appellant. State Commission found that there was deficiency in service by appellant-builder and issued various directions for completion of the building within a fixed time-frame. It also awarded damages to the complainants. To decide these two appeals we will refer to the facts in the case of F.A. No. 48/2001.

(2.) The complainant Mrs. Juliet Coutinho entered into an agreement on 1.3.1998 with the appellant for sale of a flat in the building project known as "Jay Kamal Complex" to be constructed on the land by the appellant which land belonged to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The amount of consideration agreed was for Rs. 6.00 lakhs. This amount was paid as per the schedule in the agreement. There is no dispute that as per terms of agreement complainant paid Rs. 5,45,000/- to the appellant leaving a balance of Rs. 55,000/-. A further amount of Rs. 23,500/- was also agreed to be paid by the complainant to the appellant towards cost of legal charges, taxes, maintenance deposit, etc. The amount of Rs. 55,000/- which was due to the appellant from the complainant was payable on the delivery of the possession of the premises. Appellant agreed to deliver possession of the premises to complainant within 12 months from the date of the agreement. He defaulted. Complainant made various visits to the premises and also met the appellant on many occasions. Ultimately she knocked at the door of the State Commission seeking a direction to the appellant to deliver possession of the premises complete in all respects. She also prayed for payment of an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month from March, 1999 till the date of possession along with interest @ 18% per annum. This amount was claimed being rent of the premises presently occupied by her. She also claimed compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- with interest for delay in possession and yet further sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was claimed for mental agony and torture. On notice being issued to appellant as well as to other two respondents being owners of the land only appellant put in his appearance. His defence was that complaint was premature; no notice was served by the complainant making any demand; agreement was not enforceable, it being not registered and no stamp duty had been paid. Appellant also raised the plea that disputes have to be referred to arbitration as per clause in the agreement.

(3.) State Commission considered if there was failure on the part of the appellant to deliver possession of the premises within the stipulated period; whether the parties should be referred to arbitration; and whether it was necessary for the complainant to send any notice of demand. Affidavits in support of their respective case were filed by the parties. After considering the case as set up by the parties State Commission in Complaint Case No. 16/2000 issued following directions :