U.S.SUSHEEL KUMAR Vs. RMR BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision by the complainant is to the order dated 14.6.2004 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hydrabad directing the respondents/opposite parties to pay amount of Rs. 10,000/ - paid by the petitioner for regularization of the building to the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad in addition to the sum awarded by the District Forum by the order dated 21.12.1999. The District Forum had directed the respondents to pay differential amount of Rs. 50,000/ - with interest @ 18% per annum from 1.1.1993 and cost of Rs.

(2.) ,000/ - to the petitioner. 2. Only few facts need be noticed for deciding this revision. Under the agreement dated 20.6.1992, the respondents had undertaken to construct for the petitioner Flat No. 2 -A @ Rs. 200/ - per sq. ft. Petitioner alleged that he paid a total amount of Rs. 3,03,000 between 25.5.1991 to 16.10.1992 to the respondents. Amount of Rs. 52,452/ - was further paid towards undivided share in the land to the respondents. Construction of the flat was to be completed within six months of the execution of the said agreement. Possession of flat, however, was given some time in July, 1995. Petitioner further alleged that the respondents abandoned the construction and at the time possession of flat was taken, it was incomplete. Complaint filed by the petitioner seeking certain reliefs was contested by the respondents by filing written version but the grounds of contest need not be referred to for deciding this revision. Complaint by the District Forum and appeal by the State Commission were disposed of in the manner noticed above.

(3.) Main thrust of argument advanced by Mrs. K. Radha Rao for the petitioner is that the fora below acted erroneously in discarding the Estimate of cost of the flat in question prepared by Srasta. Architects & Engineers(copy at page 69) and in not allowing refund of Rs. 52,452/ - paid to the respondents towards the cost of undivided share in the land. It is admitted by both the parties that an advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner by the District Forum and the Local Commissioner had taken the help of Srasta, Architects and Engineers in executing the commission. Copies of the reports of both of them are placed on the file. As may be seen from these reports, on physical verification the area of the rooms including balconies of the flat in question was found to be 1291 sq. ft. Petitioner alleged that the area of flat is 900 sq. ft. In the said Estimate, Ex. A -23, the cost of construction of the flat is shown as Rs. 97,156/ -. As is manifested from the order of District Forum this Estimate was discarded on ground of only a copy thereof being filed by the petitioner and affidavit on behalf of Srasta Architects and Engineers not being filed. Bare reading of the reports of Local Commissioner and Srasta Architects and Engineers would indicate that the said Estimate is not even referred to in any of these reports. In this backdrop, fora below had rightly discarded the Estimate, Ex. A -23.