SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Jayarama Chouta, President; Mr. Abdul Perwad and
Mrs. Rama Ananth, Members
SMT. KASHIAMMA—Complainant
versus
M. HUSSAIN—Opposite Party
Complaint No. 59 of 1999—Decided on 1.1.2003

Advocates:
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. K. Rama Bhat, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : None.

The court's decision was influenced by the non-fulfillment of contractual obligations, reliance on the terms of the agreement, and the unassailed materials placed by the complainant.

Headnote:

C.P. Act - Breach of Contract - Section 12 - 20 per cent per annum - Rs. 5,00,000/- - Rs. 10,00,000/- - 18 months - Golden Apartments - Rs. 10,00,000/- - 20 per cent - Rs. 5,00,000/- - Rs. 10,00,000/- - Rs. 3,000/-

Fact of the Case:

The complainant entered into an agreement to purchase an apartment in a proposed complex, paid Rs. 5,00,000/- as advance, and demanded a refund and liquidated damages for breach of contract by the opponents.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the opponents failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement, and the documents and materials placed by the complainant remained unassailed, leading to the allowance of the complaint.

Issues: Breach of contract, non-fulfillment of obligations under the agreement, refund of advance amount, and payment of liquidated damages.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the terms of the agreement, non-completion of construction within the stipulated period, and the unassailed materials placed by the complainant to allow the complaint and order the refund of the advance amount and payment of liquidated damages.

Final Decision: The complaint was allowed, and the opponents were directed to refund the advance amount with interest, pay liquidated damages, and bear the cost of the proceedings within 2 months.

ORDER

Mr. Justice T. Jayarama Chouta, President—This complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the C.P. Act to issue direction to O.Ps. jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- received by them as advance under agreement of sale dated 10.7.1997 with interest thereon at 20 per cent per annum from the date of the agreement till payment and to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as liquidated damages for breach of contract committed by O.Ps. with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. The allegations made in the complaint are that O.Ps. proposed to construct a multi-storey apartment complex known as “Golden Apartments” by advertising in leading dailies. The complainant on coming to know of this, appraoched O.Ps. with an offer to buy one residential apartment in the proposed complex. After mutual discussion the complainant and O.Ps. entered into an agreement of sale dated 10.7.1997 wherein O.Ps. had agreed to sell one residential apartment with undivided share for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-. As on the date of the agreement the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash to O.P. 3 namely, Mohd. Iqbal. The receipt was issued on 14.7.1997 by O.P. 3 in addition to the acknowledgement made in the agreement of sale. As per the terms of the agreement of sale the complainant was required to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- after the sale deed was registered in 4 instalments as detailed in clause 2 of the agreement of sale. As per the terms of the agreement O.Ps. were required to execute sale deed and register the same within 18 months from the date of the agreement i.e., on or before 10.1.1999. The agreement further stated that the registration of the sale deed is subject to the condition that the same is done after the construction work of entire apartment/complex is completed. It was further agreed that the construction of the entire complex should be completed within 18 months from the date of the agreement failing which the vendor is liable to refund the advance amount paid with interest at 20 per cent from the date of agreement and also to pay penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

3. The complainant further submitted in the complaint that even after the expiry of the time stipulated in the agreement O.Ps. have failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. The construction of the apartment was incomplete and it has reached up to the roof slab of the first floor.

4. By a registered notice dated 18.2.1999 issued through their Advocate, the complainant demanded for refund of the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid by her as advance with interest thereon at 20 per cent per annum from the date of the agreement till payment and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- being the liquidated damages estimated at the time of the contract as possible loss suffered by the complainant. Even though the said notice was served on the opponents, they failed to reply and failed to comply with the demand of the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking the above reliefs mentioned above. Along with the complaint the complainant has produced the agreement of sale entered into between the parties, receipt issued by O.P. 3 and copy of the registered lawyer’s notice issued to O.Ps.

5. In response to the notice issued by this Commission O.Ps. through their Advocate have filed written version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. They not only denied the agreement of sale entered into between them and the complainant on 10.7.1997, but denied even their doing construction work. They also denied the fact of receiving a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- advance from the complainant. They requested the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

6. On behalf of the complainant affidavit has been filed and the documents mentioned above have been produced. The Advocate appearing on behalf of O.Ps. filed a memo stating that since O.Ps. did not contact him further after issuing registered notice






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top