IMPORTANT POINT
Only on the basis of semi-finished shown in site plan attached with Sale Deed, complainant is not entitled to get refund of money.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 17.12.2012 passed by State Commission in Complaint No. 119 of 2010 - Dr. R. Sudhakar Rao & Anr. Vs. M/s. Sri Venkatesh Constructions & Ors.; by which complaint was partly allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1 entered into contract for purchase of flat No. 201 at door No. 3-6-527 in Highness Residency, Road No. 7, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, admeasuring 1976 sq fts @ Rs. 2,800/- per sq. ft. in the name of his son- Sri Ranga Veera Nanda Kishore. It was further submitted that opposite party No. 1-partnerhsip firm entered into contract of construction with land owner-Smt. Nikkath Parveen and five others. Complainant No. 1 paid Rs. 50,116/- on 24.6.2006 as advance against total sale consideration of Rs. 55,32,800/-. It was further submitted that cost of other amenities was Rs. 5.00 lakh. Time for completion of construction work was two years as per the Development Agreement between opposite party No. 1 and owner of land but construction was delayed. Complainant No. 1 repeatedly insisted opposite party No. 1 to complete construction and hand over the possession of property. It was further submitted that complainant No. 1 paid Rs. 40,50,116/- by April, 2008 and by that time even 50% construction work was not completed and construction work was stopped. In such circumstances, complainant completed remaining pending work by spending Rs. 10 lakhs. It was further submitted that opposite party No. 2 demanded enhanced rate of Rs. 3,300/- per sq. ft. instead of Rs. 2,800/- but complainant No. 1 refused to pay. As Sale Deed was not executed, opposite party No. 2 to 4 under coercion obtained two cheques of Rs. 5.00 lakh each from complainant No. 1 drawn on self, whereas these cheques were encashed by opposite party No. 4. It was further submitted that again two cheques of total Rs. 6,85,000/- were obtained by opposite party No. 3 from complainant No. 1 with promise that cheques will be returned soon after the Sale Deed is registered but cheques were not returned. Opposite party No. 2 further demanded Rs. 20.00 lakhs which were paid and sale deed was got executed in favour of his son/complainant No. 2 after obtaining loan from bank. It was further submitted that quality of construction was very poor. Opposite party No. 2 collected Rs. 1,47,044/- as service tax which was not payable. Opposite party reduced common area as well allotted less area in undivided land and complainant claimed refund of Rs. 7,14,000/- towards common area and Rs. 8,99,600/- towards short fall of land. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant No. 1 filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and denied that complainant No. 1 has purchased property but submitted that his son has purchased the property and got registered Sale Deed executed in his favour, so complainant has no locus standii to file complaint. Opposite party denied receipt of any amount encashed. Opposite party also denied receipt of Rs. 50,116/- for entering into agreement and denied contents of para 3 (c) of the complaint. It was further submitted that complaint was barred by limitation. Complainant No. 1 has not given any details of expenditure incurred by him and as per Sale Deed, complete finished flat was handed over to the purchaser so there was no question of completing work by spending Rs. 10.00 lakhs. It was further denied that opposite party obtained two cheques of Rs. 5.00 lakh from the complainant drawn as self and got it encashed. It was further submitted that complainant No. 1 obtained loan of Rs. 6,85,000/- from opposite party No. 2 and for refund gave two cheques of aforesaid amount which were dishonoured and opposite party No. 2 has filed complaint u/s 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. It was denied that quality of construction was poor. Allegation regarding collection of service tax, reduction of com