V RAMAN Vs. MAXWORTH HOME LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Based on the representations made by the opposite party about their projects of development of land and buildings, the complainant entered into an agreement for development and construction with the opposite party on 4.7.1997 for construction of a residential apartment of a built-up area of 783 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.6,25,949/-. It was agreed that a sum of Rs.1,40,010/- had to be paid by the complainant towards land development and project promotion and the same was thus paid and acknowledged by the opposite party on 4.7.1997. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 19.6.1996; a sum of Rs.83,649/- on 3.7.1997 and a sum of Rs.1,66,919/- on 3.9.1998. Thus the complainant paid all the amounts due under the agreement and a sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant on 3.7.1997 in respect of the plot measuring 2400 sq. ft. in Velachery project. He was nor issued with chitta, patta or adangal or panchayat approval for the plot sold. The complainant also alleges that the opposite party had not even obtained the approval for the house. The opposite party promised to complete the construction by November 1998, water supply lines and storm water drains by December 1998 and the road facility by first quarter of 1999. But the opposite party failed and neglected to keep up the time schedule. The complainant had to wade through water and cut across a kutcha mud path to reach his site. There was no progress in the opposite party's project. The project was a total failure. The complainant had paid the entire amount due and payable by him. The complainant wrote to the opposite party on 19.12.2000 calling upon the opposite party to give written confirmation regarding the time frame within which the opposite party would complete the construction. The complainant also informed the opposite party that the construction cannot be kept pending indefinitely and a written assurance must be given to the complainant by the opposite party and otherwise he would prefer to terminate the contract and go ahead with the construction of his house on his own. The opposite party neither took any initiative to go ahead with the construction or send a reply to the complainant's several letters. Therefore, the complainant issued a Lawyer's notice on 17.1.2001.

(2.) On 17.1.2001 subsequent to the Counsel's notice, negotiation talks went on and the opposite party assured to obtain the building plan approval and provide revised schedule and recommence the construction. But in spite of the same, there was no further progress on the part of the opposite party. The complainant found that there was no progress in infrastructural facilities. There was no access road to the plot. Water has stagnated in and around the plot. There was an open sewerage pit in front of the plot and there was wild growth of weeds in and around the plot. The opposite party assured to make necessary arrangements to obtain the building plan approval and also undertook to provide basic amenities like access roads, sewerage and effluent treatment, water supply connection, electricity connection and street lights. The opposite party neither replied nor complied with the notice. Once again, the opposite party on 14.9.1992 sent a letter assuring the complainant that they would obtain the building plan approval at the earliest. The opposite party has abandoned the construction since 1998. The complainant had invested a huge sum of Rs.3,75,568/-. The opposite party has failed to obtain the necessary building plan approval. The opposite party failed to put up the construction as agreed upon. The complainant had to stay in a rented house paying rent of Rs.5,000/- per month. Thus, the complainant has been put to loss which the opposite party is bound to make good. The opposite party has thus committed gross deficiency in service. They have adopted unfair trade practice. The action of the opposite party has caused mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant prays for a direction to the opposite party to obtain building plan approval from the concerned authorities and complete the construction or in the alternative to hand over possession of the house in "as is where" condition in order to enable the complainant to construct the house and in the alternative to refund a sum of Rs.1,40,010/-, pay a sum of Rs.1,566/- p. m. and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

(3.) Neither the Counsel nor the opposite party cared to appear though as early on 23.5.2003 a Vakalat was filed by a Counsel on its behalf and version was filed later. The opposite party is, therefore, set ex parte. Exhibits A-1 to A-19 are marked. The Counsel appearing for the complainant was heard.