PREMIER HOMES Vs. OLIVER ARCHIBALD ARANHA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents/complainants on coming to know that opposite party proposed to construct a multi -storeyed residential complex at S.L. Mathias Road, Flanir, Mangalore, contacted them and booked four residential flats, each measuring 1700 sq. ft. valued at Rs. 750 per sq. ft. and also paid a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh as advance and the opposite party assured the complainants to complete the project within one year and commence the work on the same within four months. The opposite party issued a letter dated 18.8.1995 to the complainants, which bears the terms of the contract as also receipt of Rs. 5.00 lakh paid by the complainants. However, the opposite party could not complete the project within the promised period. When the complainants did not notice any progress in the project and also did not receive the refund of the aforesaid amount, they sent a legal notice dated 4.2.2003 to the opposite party, to which it was replied by the opposite party that they could not complete the project because of non -payment of balance amount by the complainants. The opposite party also stated that complainant and his wife have booked four flats at a total cost of Rs. 47,97,000 and since the complainants were unable to pay the balance sum, they sought delivery of one apartment with three bedrooms and accordingly opposite party delivered them one such apartment as per registered sale deed dated 18.6.1998 for Rs. 13,68,000, in respect of which the complainants version is that the said sale deed is in fact a manipulated document and has been prepared to defeat their legitimate right.

(2.) IN the above background, the complainants filed four separate complaints before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and seeking in each case refund of Rs. 5.00 lakh along with 21% interest per annum from 1.9.1996, as also compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh towards the mental agony suffered by them. After considering the evidence adduced and arguments advanced by the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaints and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 5.00 lakh in each case to the complainants with interest @ 14% per annum from the date of Ex. C -2 till the date of payment. That apart, cost of Rs. 25,000 was also awarded in each case. Aggrieved thereupon, the opposite party challenged the order of the District Forum in appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while entertaining the appeals filed by the opposite party observed the receipt of amount by the opposite party in the year 1995 and took note of the fact that the opposite party has not taken steps to construct the building. The State Commission under the circumstances held that the District Forum was right in allowing the complaints of the complainants and dismissed the appeals filed by the opposite party.

(3.) HENCE , this revision petition.