A RAMI REDDY Vs. G K SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was one of the 11 opposite parties before the State Commission. The respondent Nos. i and 2 had purchased a piece of land and a semi-built house in Aladin Mansion from respondent Nos. 3 to 6, construction work of which was given to the other respondents. Basically is the case of the complainant that respondent No. 12 M/s. S.R. Construction Company, which was a partnership firm comprising respondent Nos. 9,10,11 as also the appellant, despite payment of Rs. 1,95,000 to the respondent No. 3 to 6, and Rs. 3,05,000 to M/s. Poonavolu Investments Pvt. Ltd., the work not getting completed. Hence a complaint was filed before the State Commission. The case of the complainant was that the work of construction given to M/s. Poonavolu Investments Pvt. Ltd. was to be executed by M/s. S.R. Constructions as a result of further agreement between these two parties. When this work was not getting completed a complaint was filed before the State Commission who after hearing the parties, directed payment of Rs. 5,00,000 with interest @ 25% p.a. and Rs., 10,000 towards damages and cost of Rs. 5,000. This order was passed on 11.6.2002. Aggrieved by this order, appellant filed an appeal before this Commission, which was dismissed, against which the matter was taken to Supreme Court who after hearing the parties, remanded the case back to the State Commission to give an opportunity to the appellant to be heard. On remand the State Commission, after giving opportunity to the appellant passed the same order as passed earlier on 11.6.2002. Hence this appeal before us.

(2.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the material on record. The State Commission is quite clear in returning the finding that M/s. Poonavolu Investments Pvt. Ltd., entered into a partnership agreement 'dated 30.11.1996 with the S.R. Constructions Company, whose partners were respondent Nos. 9 to 11 as also the appellant and as per this agreement all rights and liabilities of M/s. Poonavolu Investments Pvt. Ltd. in respect of Aladin Mansion, i.e., place where complainant wanted to have a semi-constructed house completed. In view of this arrangement, we are unable to sustain the plea taken by the appellant that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the appellant for the simple reason that complainant had got into an arrangement with M/ s. Poonavolu Investments Pvt. Ltd. for construction and completion of construction which has been passed on to M/s. S.R. Constructions Company through an agreement dated 30.11.96 which stipulated the S.R. Construction Company, on whom, the appellant was the partner, to take all the assets and liabilities of M/s Poonavolu Investments Wt. Ltd.. There is also no dispute that money had changed hands. In fact when the work was not getting completed two separate cheques were issued in 1994 itself by M/s. Poonavolu Investments Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the complainant but they were asked not to encash it and in the meantime M/s. Poonavolu Investments Pvt. Ltd. entered into an agreement with M/s. S.R. Constructions Company for completing the job which has not been done.

(3.) HOWEVER we see that rate of interest awarded by the State Commission, i.e., 24%, is on the high side. Since possession has not been given to the complainant, the highest award in such case could be only @ 18% p.a. Only to this extent the appeal is allowed. Rest of the order is maintained. The Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.