ORDER

Sunita C. Bagewadi Member—The complainant filed this complaint against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service and unfair Trade Practice and prays to direct the Opposite Party to execute the sale deed and handover the possession of schedule “B’ property or in the alternative to direct the Opposite Party for refund of Rs.33,00,000/- along with interest @l8o/o p.a. from the date of payment till realization and to pay damages of Rs.15,97,000/- along with litigation costs and grant such other relief as deemed fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the Opposite Party is a developer/builder under the name and style of M/s Pathak Developers Pvt. Ltd. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and attended the meeting held by them and entered into an agreement with the Opposite Party on 10.7.2070. The total consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- in respect of B-schedule property mentioned below and the complainant has paid Rs.5,00,000/- as list installment and later the complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- as list installment and later the complainant paid periodical payment as agreed. The complainant paid total amount of Rs.28,50,000/-. Another 5% i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- to be paid as of the date of registration. The complainant has issued a post dated cheque for the same also. Inspite of such payments and repeated demands the Opposite Party has not handed over the possession of the property on the due date and the Opposite Party has postponed the handing over the schedule property without any tangible reason. Only in the month of Feb.2014, after the complainant and other purchasers pressured the Opposite Party to restart the work, at that time the Opposite Party demanded Rs.3,00,000/- towards the alleged Govt. Deposits in respect of Water, Electricity, Transformer and UG Drainage Pipeline Charges etc. and promised to deliver the property by May, 2014. Inspite of that, the Opposite Party did not keep his part of promise as mentioned in the minutes of meeting held in Feb.2014 and of the original sale agreement. The complainant has caused a legal notice on 31.7.2014 to the Opposite Party and the same was served to the Opposite party on 1.8.2014, after the service of the Opposite party reluctant to discharge his duty. Hence, with no other alternative the complainant approached before this Forum.

3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party has appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that it is stoutly denied that the Opposite Party has taken Rs.3,00,000/- towards alleged government deposit in respect of Water, Electricity, Transformer and UG Drainage pipeline charges etc. On the other hand, it is submitted that the Opposite Party has kept ready the draft sale deed and at that point of time biological son of Mr. V.R. Babu Mudaliar claiming rival claim over the subject matter of the Joint Development Agreement and in view of the same and in view of the court injunction, the Opposite Party could not execute the absolute sale deed in favour of the complainant after receiving balance sale consideration. Due to the above said injunction granted by the Civil Court, the Opposite Party could not complete the ongoing project work and handover the possession of the flat to the complainant and also register the sale deed. The Opposite Party is ready and willing to discharge his duties under the agreement to sale, but in view of the title dispute between the landlord and so called his predecessor for title which is pending before the Civil Court has delivery of the possession thereof. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party further submitted that immediately after conclusion of the suit, the Opposite Party is ready and willing to execute the sale deed and hand over the possession of the apartment. Therefore the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed with exemplary costs in the interest of jus