GARUDA NAGESWARA RAO Vs. BHAVANI AGENCIES & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant namely Sh. Garuda Nageshwara Rao, who was the owner of some land in Maharanipeta, Visakhapattnam, entered into an agreement with Bhavani Agencies (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party), petitioner in RP No. 1667-1668/2011 whereunder the opposite party was to develop the plot of the complainant measuring 538.30 sq.yds. and hand over 40% of the built up area subject to a minimum of 4300 sq. feet to the complainant whereas the remaining constructed area was to be retained by the opposite party. As many as ten flats were to be constructed on the plot of the complainant, five out of them being 3 bedroom flats and five being 2 bedroom flats. The complainant was entitled to two 3 bedroom flats and 2 bedroom flats, which constituted 40% of the constructed area besides four parking slots. The construction was required to be completed within fifteen months from the date of approval of the plan and there was a grace period of three months. The plan came to be approved by Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam on 15.04.2002. Additional construction was later approved by Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam on 04.12.2002. In our opinion, the construction was required to be completed within fifteen months from the date when the first plan was sanctioned i.e. 15.04.2002, with a grace period of three months. Calculated accordingly, the construction had to be completed and possession had to be delivered to the complainant by 15.10.2003. However, neither the construction was completed nor the possession was delivered to the complainant by that date. The opposite party rather sent a letter dated 22.04.2004 to the complainant, demanding a sum of Rs. 7,79,392/-, alleging that they had made extra constructions. The complaints were resisted by the opposite party on several grounds. The agreement between the parties however, was not disputed in the reply filed by the petitioner. It was alleged in the reply that the petitioner was entitled to extra payment @ Rs. 650/- per sq. feet for an additional area of 522 sq. feet since the total covered area of four flats was 4822 sq. feet. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- was claimed by the petitioner on the ground that the complainant had insisted on providing costlier ceramic tiles. A sum of Rs. 26,600/- was claimed on the ground that the petitioner had to demolish several walls and rebuild the same. It was also claimed that the complainant had failed to join the opposite party in sale of two flats which had fallen to its share thereby depriving it of Rs. 19 lacs which could be realized by sale of those flats. The petitioner therefore, also claimed interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 19 lacs @ 24% per annum from 01.04.2004 to 30.11.2005 alongwith maintenance charges.

(2.) Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) The District Forum, vide its order dated 13.07.2009, directed the opposite parties to complete the construction work of the flats which had fallen to the share of the complainant in all respects, remove the defects in the construction such as cracks that had developed in the walls and deliver the possession of those flats to him within one month. The opposite party was also directed to pay compensation quantified at Rs. 1 lakh and cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.