PACE BUILDERS PVT. LTD. Vs. K. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/respondent, Dr. K. Raju negotiated with the appellants for acquiring a flat measuring 700 sq.ft. in a commercial complex which the appellant was developing in Anna Nagar, Chennai. The price of the flat was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft. which included undivided share of land measuring 320 sq.ft. and construction on plinth area of 700 sq.ft.. The complainant paid Rs.20,01,001/- to the appellant on various dates between 14-04-1997 to 15-12-1998. A sale deed dated 14-05-1997, was executed in favour of the complainant, transferring undivided share in land measuring 320 sq.ft., in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, on 01-06-1997 the parties entered into a construction agreement whereby the constructed flat was to be delivered to the complainant on or before 01-06-1998, subject to a grace period of three months. The consideration for the purpose of construction was shown as Rs.5,33,760/- in the agreement dated 01-06-1997. In the event of delay in construction the builder was to pay interest at the rate of 24% p.a. to the complainant on the payments made by him whereas in case of delay on the part of the complainant in making payment, the appellant was entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum, on the belated payment. The case of the complainant is that though he extended time to complete construction and handover possession of the flat on the request of the builder appellant, it failed to deliver possession on one pretext or the other and did not complete the construction, demanding an extra payment of Rs.1,00,000/-.

(2.) Alleging deficiency in the services provided by the appellant, the complainant approached the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chennai (for short, the State Commission) seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the appellant which claimed that it was the complainant who had defaulted in complying with the terms & conditions of the agreement dated 01-06-1997. According to the appellant, the total price of the flat including the value of the undivided share in the land was fixed at Rs.21,00,000/- out of which Rs.5,33,760/- was payable as per the schedule stipulated in the agreement dated 01-06-1997. It was further alleged that a sum of Rs.99,000/- was still due to the appellant from the complainant as on 31-12-1998, but the complainant had failed to pay the aforesaid amount. It was also claimed in the reply that the complainant had failed to make payment for the EB deposit to obtain power supply, security for motor, water and sewerage and a sum of Rs.75,000/- was due in this regard. It was also alleged that towards the completion of the construction, the complainant used to suggest alterations and additions suitable to his convenience and taste, though the construction was as per the agreed specifications and the appellant agreed to execute the extra work at the cost of the complainant. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was alleged to be due from the complainant to the appellant towards extra work. It was also claimed in the reply of the appellant that the work had been completed by 31-05-1999 but the complainant failed to take delivery of the same against payment of the balance amount.