V P BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. SRI JAIANJANEYA ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st opposite party is a Promoter and Developer of flats and the 2nd opposite party is her power agent. The complainant entered into an agreement of sale with the opposite parties on 7.2.1996 for purchase of 1/6th of undivided share of their land and construction of a residential flat of an extent of 700 sq. ft. over the same. The opposite parties received a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- towards the major portion of the-sale consideration. They ought to have delivered possession of the flat on 31.8.1996 but they failed to do so in spite of several demands. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 24.3.1997 calling upon the opposite parties either to deliver the flat or to refund the said amount of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest thereon @ 24% p. a. from 1.9.1996. To that the opposite parties have sent an evasive reply. For mental agony suffered by the complainants they are entitled to compensation. On these pleadings the complaint has been filed for reliefs.

(2.) In the written version the opposite parties contended that the complainants failed to make payments as per the terms in the agreement, and therefore the delay occurred in the construction and the cost of price also escalated. The complainants were informed about the escalated costs. The complainants had undertaken to pay this escalated cost if it exceeds more than 10% of the original cost. The opposite parties have completed 95% of the construction and the flats are ready for occupation except for the few minor works to be done. The complainants have been avoiding payments of the balance amount due from them and also the escalated cost. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any interest to the complainants as claimed by them. No period of delivery was mentioned in the agreement, and the complainants made an insertion in the agreement regarding this. Regarding the registration of the undivided share in the land, the complainants have not come forward to purchase stamp values. Therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainants as compensation,

(3.) The point that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so what reliefs can be granted to the complainants.