MOHIMIT ENTERPRISES Vs. AMAR GANESH JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This revision petition is filed by M/s. Mohimit Enterprises against the common order dated 22.7.1999 passed by the Goa State Commission in Appeal No. 9/1999 filed by the petitioner/opposite party was dismissed and Appeal No. 12/1999 filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are: The original complainant/respondent Mr. Amar Ganesh Joshi has inspected the site and after verification decided to purchase a flat. Petitioner No. 2, Umakant Shanta Nagwekar is a small scale contractor/builder doing construction work on a small scale in the name of Mohimit Enterprises, Petitioner No. 1. As per the agreement dated 10.6.1993 the petitioners agreed to construct a flat admeasuring 81 sqm. in area on the second floor of the building known as "Landlifa Apartments" situated at St. Inez., Panaji, Goa. The total consideration of Rs. 3,68,550 was agreed to be paid in instalments of Rs. 15,000 on the date of signing and execution of the agreement, an amount of Rs. 60,000 to be paid within 30 days of the execution of the said agreement, an amount of Rs. 2 lakh within 60 days of the execution of the agreement, and to pay the remaining Rs. 93,550 at the time of hading over the possession of the flat.

(3.) The flat was required to be handed over within 4 months from the date of the agreement, i.e., by 10.10.1993. The first two instalments were made timely by the respondent. The third instalment of Rs. 2 lakh was required to be paid on or before 9.8.1993, but this was paid in two sub-instalment of Rs. 1,50,000 on 28.1.1994 and of Rs. 50,000 on 28.3.1994 and that there was technically some delay in payment of the third instalment. Due to this delay the petitioner did not hand over the possession within the stipulated time. The respondent vide letter dated 18.3.1995 asked the petitioner to hand over the possession of the flat in the first week of April 1995 and undertook to make the balance payment at the time of taking possession. The respondent also requested the petitioner to provide him occupancy certificate. He further enquired whether electricity and water connections to the suit flat had been provided or not. But the petitioner did not respond to this. Hence, the respondent personally came from Bombay (his posting place) to Goa for taking the possession of the flat. But due to non-completion of the work he did not take the possession.