VENUGOPAL Vs. R LAKSHMAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -OP No.1 against the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by the learned Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, 'the State Commission') in F.A. No.2030/2008 Venugopal Vs. Sri R. Lakshman & Ors. by which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and while upholding the order of the District Forum also held OP No. 2 jointly and severally liable with petitioner -OP No.1.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner -OP No. 1 is the owner of the Residential Composite Property bearing HASB No. 648/1 BC situated at Kodihalli village, Bangalore South Taluk. OPs agreed to construct the residential complex of flats named as "Prudential Pavan" and petitioner - OP No. 1 executed general power of attorney in favour of respondent -OP No. 2 who is the developer authorising him to enter into agreements for sale of undivided interest in the composite property and to construct Apartments as per approved plan and sell the same to the intended buyers. The complainant -Respondent No.1 entered into an agreement on 20.12.1996 with petitioner and Respondent No.2 -OPs and paid Rs.5,60,000/ - on the same day. On 20.12.1996, another supplementary agreement was also executed and Complainant -Respondent No.1 agreed to purchase Flat No.1008 and he paid total consideration of flat amounting to Rs.13,50,000/ -. As per the terms of construction agreement, OP No. 2 was to complete construction and deliver possession to the complainant but OP failed to complete the construction and handover possession of flat to the complainant. In first week of June, 2000, a meeting was held in which OP No. 2 promised to construct and deliver possession of flats within 9 months and it was further agreed that if OP No. 2 fails to keep his promise, OP No. 1 would terminate the development agreement and would take over the construction and complete the same and handover the flats to the respective flat owners and in supplementary agreement dated 7.6.2000 entered into between OP Nos. 1 and 2, the particulars of the flat purchasers (including Complainant) and the amount paid by them was mentioned. OP No. 1 terminated the agreement with OP No. 2 in 2001 and took over the entire project but OP No. 1 failed to complete the construction and handover the flat to the complainant.

(3.) OPPOSITE Parties filed separate written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum after hearing both the parties directed petitioner -OP No. 1 to complete the construction and execute registered sale deed and deliver possession of flat to the complainant and further ordered him to pay Rs.1,50,000/ - as compensation along with Rs.3,000/ - as litigation cost. Petitioner challenged this order before the State Commission and the State Commission vide impugned order upheld the order of the District Forum and further held OP No. 2 -Resondent No. 2 jointly and severally liable with OP No. 1 for aforesaid compliance.