M D BHOOPATHY Vs. MRS SARADA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed against the order dated 6th September, 1993 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu in O.P. No. 558/92. The Appellants-herein were the Opposite Parties before the State Commission, the first Opposite Party being the husband, the second Opposite Party his wife and the third and fourth Opposite Parties their sons. The Respondents herein were the Complainants before the State Commission, the first Complainant being the wife and the second Complainant her husband.

(2.) THE Complainants who are the owners of house ground and premises No. 105, Habibullah Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17 of an extent of 3 grounds 1380 sq. ft. entered into four agreements dated 6.4.90, 9.4.90, 10.4.90 and 11.4.90 respectively with each of the Opposite Parties for the sale of l/4th share of the aforesaid property excluding l/14th undivided share, for Rs. 6,75,000/-, the total consideration thus being Rs. 27,00,000/-. The Complainants and the Opposite Parties entered into another agreement on 14.4.1990 by which the were to put up an apartment building in the said land after demolishing the existing building and also construct two pent houses, one of 1500 sq. ft. for the Complainants and the other of 2000 sq. ft. for the Opposite Parties in the proposed building. The Complainants were to pay at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. ft. for the penthouse. The Complainants had also executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the Opposite Parties for signing the plans, forms and applications for obtaining necessary sanction from the concerned authorities. However, while the Opposite Parties constructed an apartment building consisting of ground, first, second and third floors and sold the flats, they failed to put up the pent house for the Complainants. The Complainants therefore filed a complaint before the State Commission for directing the Opposite Parties to put up the pent house or pay compensation to them.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order of the State Commission, the Opposite Parties have preferred this Appeal before us. The delay of one day in the Appeal stands condoned. When the Appeal came up on 23.8.1995, it was adjourned to 29.8.1995 at the instance of the Counsel appearing on both sides on the ground that there is a possibility of an amicable settlement through negotiations. However, no such possibility was reported when the case was taken up for final hearing on 29.8.1995.