Appeal

No.

102912012

Filed on:28.05.2012
Disposed on :08.08. 2012

BEFORE THE I(ARNATAI{A STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST 2OI2

THE HON,BLE MR.JUSTICE SMT.RAMA ANANTH

PRESENT

K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT
: MEMBER

Appeal No.1029/2012
M/s. S.lR Enterprises Pvt. Ltcl., 1, SJR Primus, 7th & 8th Floor, Industrial Layout, 7th Block,

No.

Koramangala, Bengaluru 560095 Rep. by its Joint Managing Director Vijay Reddy.

J.

Opposite Party before the DF

....Appellant/
-Versus-

(By Shri/Smt Kusuma Advocates

Prakash B.V.

S/o. Venkatesh K., Flat No. C-201, Mantri

Paradie. Bannerughatta Road, Bengaltrru 560t)76.

Complainant before the DF ....Respondent/s

HON,BLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT

building within 30 days from the date of the order and that the complainant shall pay the balance amount including the cost of registration and stamp duty to the appellant within 30 days from the
date of the order and thereafter the appellant shall arrange to deliver possession and execute the necessary deed of conveyance within 15 days from the date of making payment of the barance payment. The appellant is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.g4g01- pm from l'1.2o11 till completion of 30 days from the date of the order"

whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed directing the appellant herein to complete the remaining works, relating to construction of the

in complaint No.1800/ 2orl

This appeal is fileci by the appellant / OP to set aside the order dated 13.4.2oL2 passed by the 3.4 Additional DF, Bangalore urban

1'

If further delay is committed by the appellant in delivering possession even after payment of the balance amount by the complainant then the appelrant sharl -be riable to pay further *M-----

Appeal No.l02912012

compensation of Rs. 8480 l- per month until delivery of possession. If delivery of possession is derayed due to non payment of the balance amount by the complainant within 30 days from the date of the order the complainant shall not be entitled for compensation of Rs'8480 /- pm for the period subsequent to 3o days from the date of the order with comper'rsation of Rs.5o00/- and Rs.5,000/towards litigation expenses. Assailing the same, the op has come up with this appeal. appeal, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. we have gone through the averments made in the appeal memorandum.

2.

In this

The respondent /complainant has approached the District Forum with an allegation of deficiency in service as against the appellant / oP for a direction to the op to pay penal
Rs.16,ooo

3'

construction and to meet the additional cost of Rs.2,00,000/_ which happened due to increase in the vAT, service tax, registration charges, etc and to provide the grills for the glass windows and doors and to award 9,ooo /- as the amount spent by the comprainant for the legal consultation and to pay compensation of Rs.1 o,oool_ for mental agony and physical strain.
4

l- per month from January 2o7t due to the deray in

charges of

'

sanitary works were kept pending. It is also aileged by the complainant that no safety metal grills are provided to the windows and that the appellant is not willing to install the grills
windows.

According to the respondent and as admitted by the apperlant oP few works regarding floor porishing, door porishing, kitchen and

for

the

5'
,]-.' //i":i .'.. {'."
..

"n il iln,?r; tsi&rgL.'', *-._:"8fi ,/ rl'

.},

^e*

-*.,-

I-.:.

complainant and this appelrant and the appeilant qrru Lr't) qP}JsuilrrL arrcr tne appellant has not disputed dispUted th wit regard to the delay in handing over the possession '-lf$'ryith
-'"...4-)*-^-r^,-r .i::: |:reB

of course, a construction agreement entered into between the

I lri - i i i':-1

r.'I .'i.r:t! !:

,-j'

irl.i\tr:; ,r l'

r. r r.tjJ:')\ :i:':i'' .....,1 "L

.:,

\
l

't

-F. '6t

,r

l i

]po n d e n t
:

comp rla 1n ant. The appellant

to

the

I I D,'

l;i j

C\

(' .,,

)z-"

Op admitted the fact

Appeal No.l02912012

that there are several works are pending. when the terms and
conditions of the agreement is violated by the opposite party, the op is liable to pay damages as mentioned in clause s.3 of the agreement. It is not in dispute that the respondent has paid the cost
pending works, it is not just and proper on the part of the appellant op to I demand to pay extra amount from the respondent complainant.

of the building substantially. without completing the

justifiable manner. Since there is a delay in handing over possession to the respondent and as certain works are yet to be completed by the op, the District Forum rightly observed the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and therefore the impugned order under challenge by the appellant does not require
any interference. Accordingly, we pass the following:

The District Forum in paragraph Nos.11 to t7 atpage Nos.g to 10 has considered and met the points raised by the parties in a

ORDER Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. The order passed by the III Additionar DF in ailowing the complaint
No.1800/

2OlI is confirmed.

The amount deposited by the appellant in this appeal shall be transferred to the DF to enable the DF to pay the same to the respondent / complainant after due notice to him.

V\ or^v " PRESIDENT