FRANCISCO XAVIER RODRIGOUS Vs. JOSEPH MENEZES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The factual matrix of this case which are relevant for its disposal may be stated like this. By an agreement dated 20.08.1999, the petitioners/opposite parties agreed to sell flat bearing no.2 with a super built up area of 66.53 sq. mtrs. situated on the first floor of the building called 'Livra Apartments' within the limits of Margao Municipal Council in South Goa District. The respondent/complainant paid the entire consideration of Rs. 3,90,000/- and possession of the said flat was handed over by the petitioners to the respondent on 25.04.2002. After taking over the possession, the respondent/complainant has been paying house tax in his name as the occupier of the flat. He has also been paying water bills in his name. However, in spite of repeated requests of the respondent/complainant failed to execute the sale deed and conveyed that they would execute the sale deed subject to three conditions. Firstly, all the expenses in regard to the execution of the sale deed should be borne by the complainant; secondly, in case the complainant desired to sell the flat, the first option should come to the OPs and finally, a sum of Rs. 1 lac was required to be paid by the complainant on account of the OPs having carried out extra works in the flat at the request of the complainant. The OPs requested the complainant to inform them within 15 days so that they could prepare the draft for sale deed. The complainant replied to the letter of the OPs by sending his response on 25.11.2011 agreeing to pay all the expenses towards the execution of the sale deed. Regarding other two conditions imposed by the OPs, the complainant did not agree to the same and pointed out that he had paid all the dues and only after receiving all the payments, the complainant was given the possession of the flat. He denied that he had failed to clear any bill and that the claim of the OPs of Rs. 1 lac was made with malafide intentions. Eventually, the complainant/respondent filed a consumer complaint in this regard alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

(2.) On notice, the petitioners contested the complaint and filed written statement in which it was stated that the OPs had carried out additional works in the said flat at the request of the complainant for which the complainant had assured the OPs that he shall reimburse all the expenses incurred on such extra works. The complainant failed to reimburse the said amount to the OPs and hence the request for payment of Rs. 1 lac in terms of the provisions of clause 8 of the agreement signed between the parties. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the petitioners/OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

(3.) Both the parties led evidence in support of their contentions and on appraisal of the issues and the evidence placed before it, the District Forum, vide its order dated 30.01.2014 partly allowed the complaint in terms of the following directions:-