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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member
M/s. Charan Homes Pvt. Ltd., Builders & Developers & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Sri Jai Prakash Rai, M.G. — Respondent
First Appeal No. 522 of 2007
(From the Order dated 24.08.2007 in Complaint No.576/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka)
Decided on 22.11.2012

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. S.R. Sudarram, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sampat Anand Shetty, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Housing is a service and if housing firm/Authority failed to comply with its obligation under agreement, it is liable to compensate consumer.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Development agreement—Complaint allowed by State Commission—Agreement entered into between parties was not a sham and colourable document not intended to be put into effect—Appellants had agreed to sell the flat to Respondent and received Rs.15 lakh from him towards sale consideration—Appellants could wriggle out of written contract only on showing that agreement had been got executed by Respondent either by playing a fraud or coercion or on misrepresentation—Neither any such plea nor any evidence was put on record to show that Respondent had got agreement executed from Appellants either by playing a fraud or coercion or on misrepresentation—In absence of any such plea or proof agreement cannot be termed as sham and colourable document not intended to be put into effect on a bald submission made by Appellants—Appellants failed to deliver and register sale deed in respect of flat in favour of Respondent—Appellants directed to either give a flat to Respondent as per agreement entered into between the parties or to pay Rs.1,26,00,000—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 12 to 15)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

ORDER

Ashok Bhan, President—Appellants which were Opposite Parties before the State Commission have filed this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.08.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint No. 576/2006 wherein the State Commission allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent has directed the Appellants to allot a two bed room flat in the First Floor of the Multi Storeyed Building constructed by them in the land bearing Corporation No.21 corresponding to new No.19, Melvelle House Grounds, Palace Cross Road, Bangalore-560 020 bounded on the “East by K.T. Apartments, West by Plot No.2 of Sri N. Govind, North by Palace Cross Road, South by Madras Bangalore Railway Line’ as described in the Agreement dated 24.01.04 within a period of 60 days from the date of the Complainant paying the balance amount, if any. Rs.5,000/- were awarded as costs.

FACTS:-

2. Complainant/Respondent was in possession of non- agricultural land in Property Nos.18, 19, 20 & 29 at Melvelle House Grounds, Palace Road, Bangalore and was managing same on behalf of the original owner Narayana Reddy. In 1983, a partnership firm, namely, M.M. Foundation was constituted to develop the property bearing No.19 at the request of original owner. Respondent was one of the Partners of the Firm. Since there was no progress in the development of the said property, a tripartite agreement was entered into among the Appellants builder (Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2), original owner of the Property and the M.M. Foundation for constructing a multi-storeyed building consisting of residential flats for sale to the intending buyers.

3. Thereafter, on Respondent’s agreeing to give up his right as a partner of M.M. Foundation, Appellants entered into an agreement on 24.01.04 with the Respondent for sale of a residential flat measuring 1200 Sq. Ft. in the Ist Floor of the said multi-storeyed building for consideration @ Rs.2,000/- per Sq. Ft. Respondent paid a sum of Rs.15 lakh towards sale consideration to the Appellant which was also mentioned in the Agreement. In terms of the agreement, Respondent was liable to pay an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- in case the actual built up area in the flat sold to him exceeded 1200 Sq. Ft. Appellants did not deliver and register the sale deed in respect of the said flat in favour of the Respondent. Complainant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission.

4. Appellants, on being served, entered appearance and filed their written statement resisting the complaint, inter-alia, on the grounds; that the agreement relied upon by the Respondent was a sham and colourable document entered into just to wriggle out of the hurdles created by the Respondent to stall execution of the project and to cause hardship to the Appellants; that the Respondent should be relegated to the Civil Court for seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale.

5. State Commission, after scanning the material available on record and going through the evidence led by the parties allowed the complaint and directed the Appellants to allot a two bed room flat in the First Floor of the Multi Storeyed Building constructed by them in the land bearing Corporation No.21 corresponding to new No.19, Melvelle House Grounds, Palace Cross Road, Bangalore-560 020 bounded on the “East by K.T. Apartments, West by Plot No.2 of Sri N. Govind, North by Palace Cross Road, South by Madras Bangalore Railway Line’ as described in the Agreement dated 24.01.04 within a period of 60 days from the date of the Complainant paying the balance amount, if any. Rs.5,000/- were awarded as costs.

State Commission observed thus:-

“ In so far as the maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, we are of the view that under the Agreement the OPs have undertaken to built a flat for the complainant and to hand over possession executing the sale deed. Therefore, it is a


























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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top