NAGARWALA CONSTRUCTIONS PARTNERSHIP FIRM Vs. SUNITA ASHOK VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant entered into an agreement with the petitioner Nagarwala Constructions for purchase of an apartment in a building, which the petitioner was to construct in terms of an agreement dated 25.11.1995, which the petitioner had with the owner/lessee Sh. K. S. Trivedi, Sh. S. K. Trivedi and Sh. J. K. Trivedi. The petitioner allotted apartment no. 202 in the proposed building to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 5.25 lakhs. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner had agreed to give vacant possession of the apartment within 18 months. However, the possession was given to her on 28.02.2001 and even at that time, the construction was incomplete. The complainant alleged to have spent Rs. 50,000/ - for carrying out the remaining construction in the flat.

(2.) THE complainant, after taking possession, filed a complaint before the District Forum at Nagpur, alleging therein that the petitioner had failed to install hydraulic capsule lift, supply domestic electric connection by approaching Maharashtra State Electricity Board, provide overhead water tank, provide domestic water connection, install electric motor pump and provide letter box room, electric meter room, electric connection with separate domestic electric meter, backup generator and parking facility. It was further alleged that the petitioner had failed to install backup generator within the stipulated time, besides failing to remove the illegal construction of a shop carried out by him. The complainant wanted the aforesaid facility, besides refund of the maintenance charges paid by her.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner, inter -alia, on the ground that the complainant did not pay the consideration as per the agreed schedule of payment and therefore was liable to pay interest and amount of Rs. 1,13,767/ -. It was further alleged that she had not paid charges towards electricity transformer and water connection. The petitioner denied that the construction was incomplete when the possession was given to the complainant. As regards lift, it was stated that the petitioner had provided the same out of its own pocket without any contribution from the occupants of the apartment. It was also claimed that the petitioner had also provided adequate water supply as well as constructed overhead tank besides electric meter room in the basement of the building. It was further stated that since, the complainant was not ready to share the expense required for installation of the transformer, the petitioner was not responsible for the non -installment of the electricity meter. It was also claimed that the complainant was in arrear towards general maintenance charges and water charges.