RAMESHCHANDRA RAMNIKLAL SHAH Vs. LATA CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two complainants in this case seek appropriate reliefs in pursuance of the agreement dated 27.1.87 against the developers whose services were alleged to have been hired by the complainant for the purpose of constructing residential premises and delivering possession of the same and the opposite parties being guilty of deficiency in service.

(2.) THE case set up in the complaint filed on 5.7.93 is mat the complainants who were at that time in Libya and wanted to settle in India later, entered into an agreement dated 27.1.87 with M/s. Lata Construction (opposite party No. 1), represented by its partner Shri Vijay Shankar Kamat (opposite party No. 2) and opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 being the other partners. Under the said agreement, the opposite parties were to develop, construct and handover possession of flat No. AG -2 on the ground floor having an area of 670 sq.ft to the complainants, situated in a building named Madhusudan, on plot No. 138, T.P.S. II and C.T.S. No. 1166 and 1166(1) in Vile Parle, Bombay -400 057. The opposite parties had earlier entered into a development agreement on 9.12.85 with the owners in respect of the said property to develop, construct and to sell flats in the proposed building to be constructed on ownership basis. The complainant allege that on 27.1.87 as a consideration for the services of constructing and giving possession of the aforesaid flat the complainants paid to the opposite parties Rs. 3,38,000/ - in cash but without any receipt and Rs. 32,000/ - by cheque against receipt and in addition paid on various dates, as and when demanded by opposite parties, a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - against receipts. It is further stated that the complainants when they came from Libya in June, 1988, offered to pay the balance payment to opposite party No. 2 and asked him to hand over the possession as the construction of the building was complete, but opposite party No. 2 refused to accept the payment and to hand over possession on the pleas that electricity, plumbing, tiling and fencing work was incomplete and the occupation certificate had not been received, but opposite party No. 2 assured the complainants that opposite parties would accept the remaining payment with the completion of the above said works and on obtaining occupation certificate possession would be handed over to the complainants.

(3.) IT is further alleged that the complainants filed a Police complaint against opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in response to which opposite party No. 2 was summoned at the Crime Branch where he was interrogated and later gave an undertaking in writing to the Police to give possession by 5th May, 1993 of an alternative accommodation in Vile Parle to the complainants, but the same has not been given. The complainants allege that they have been forced to stay with complainant No. ls parents in a small flat with their two children in conditions which are uncomfortable and cramped, that just because of the unscrupulous behaviour of opposite parties the complainants and their children have to endure physical and emotional strains and that the complainants have suffered loss of opportunity to practice their profession. The complainants state that the opposite parties have been guilty of negligent acts and deficiency in service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and claim for a direction to the opposite parties for rectification in deficiency in service by giving the complainants possession of Flat No. AG -2 in Madhusudan Building or to pay Rs. 26.8 lakhs the then current price of the flat with 18% interest per annum besides compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh, Rs. 10,000/ - as actual expenses incurred and Rs. 30,000/ - as costs of litigation.