CHITRA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD Vs. SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against the interim order passed by the Lower Forum.

(2.) Section 13 (3b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , empowers the Forum to pass such interim order if it is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) Here, there is no dispute between the parties that there is a construction agreement between the parties. The complainant pursuant to the agreement paid certain amounts. It is admitted in the version that the opposite party agreed to complete the construction within 18 months from the date of agreement namely from 10.9.2000. According to the complainant, he has paid totally a sum of Rs.25,45,500. According to the opposite party, the complainant is still liable to make a payment of' Rs.8,00,000. This aspect of the matter as to what exactly the amount was paid and whether any amount is still due and payable by the complainant to the opposite party cannot be now decided especially in this application. It has to be decided only when inquiry is taken up on the complaint by the Lower Forum. But, anyhow, the fact is not in dispute that a substantial amount has been paid by the complainant. It is also seen from the version that though the building was agreed to be constructed and handed over on or before 10.3.2002, from the version it is seen that the building is not yet complete. According to the complainant, the complainant was shocked to learn that the opposite party has not obtained the approval of C. M. D. A. In this connection, the complainant relies upon the notice dated 16.7.2002. The opposite party in their version states that the block in which the complainant has purchased a flat has not been approved is known to the opposite party and that the complainant knows that it is in the process of regularization and that the complainant is also aware that necessary payments have been made towards the same. Therefore, considering the background of the above facts, it will be clear that the order passed by the Lower Forum for a direction to the opposite party to complete the construction cannot be termed as beyond the powers of the Lower Forum. A direction has been issued only to complete the construction which even according to the opposite party had to be completed before March, 2002 and that it has not been completed. In fact, the opposite party alleges that he has initiated the process for regularization of the construction for the block in which a flat has been purchased by the opposite party. Therefore, to that extent, the interim order passed by the Lower Forum cannot be said to be opposed to law or equity.