Ahmed Mohammed Vs. Smt U.Rama Devi and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1109828
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnFeb-03-2011
Case NumberF.A.No. Of 897 Of 2008 Against C.C. No. 112 Of 2007 District Forum Ranga Reddy
JudgeMR. SYED ABDULLAH, HONOURABLE MEMBER & MR. R. LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HONOURABLE MEMBER
AppellantAhmed Mohammed
RespondentSmt U.Rama Devi and Another
Excerpt:
oral order (as per sri r.lakshminarasimha rao, honble member) 1. the opposite party no.2 is the appellant. he is the owner and possessor of the land measuring 314 sq.yards in ward no.11 block no.1 green hills colony, saroornagar village and mandal, r.r. district. the opposite party no.2 entered into construction agreement with the opposite party no.1 for development and construction of residential complex under the name and style of manju heavens. the opposite party no.1 obtained approval from the local authorities and began to construct the flats as per specifications. the complainant entered into an agreement of sale with the opposite partyno.2 on 19.5.2005 for purchase of double bed room flat no.f2 in 1st floor in manju heavens to an extent of 725 sq. feet including common area, for a consideration of `8,50,000/- which was later reduced to `8 lakhs. the complainant had paid `50,000/- towards advance on the date of agreement and the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. after receiving the entire sale consideration the opposite parties executed sale deed on 12.12.2005. the complainant realized that the rooms of the flat were smaller than the agreed specifications. the opposite party no.1 constructed the flat of 517 sq.feet against the agreed specifications of 725 sq.feet and thus there was deficit area. the opposite party no.1 did not furnish the link document to the complainant. the complainant got issued notice on 10.9.2007 to the opposite parties with a request for refund of the price for the deficit area and to hand over the link documents. 2. the opposite party no.1 resisted the claim contending that the complainant did not enter into agreement of sale with it. the opposite party no.1 had not executed the sale deed for the flat in favour of the complainant. the sale transaction took place between the complainant and the opposite party no.1 and the sale consideration was paid to the opposite party no.2. the possession of the flat was delivered to the opposite party no.2 with whom the complainant entered into the agreement. the complainant having satisfied herself with the condition of the flat, had taken possession of it. she had not raised any objection with regard to the measurements of the flat. the plinth area of the flat is 725 sq.ft including the common area and area left for parking and area covered by walls. the construction was completed as per the terms of the development agreement. 3. the opposite party no.2 filed counter contending that the complainant had received the title deeds and other relevant documents for the purpose of obtaining loan from the bank and approached m/s deshpande chartered architects and engineers, kaviduguda along with the documents. the chartered architects inspected on 20.9.2006 the flat and certified the valuation report stating that the built up area is 725 sq.feet inclusive of common area. after obtaining the bank loan the complainant has got the sale deed executed in her favour and took possession of the flat on 12.12.2005 without raising any objection. 4. the complainant has filed her affidavit and documents marked as exs.a1 to a16. b.raghu of the opposite party no.1 firm filed his affidavit. the opposite partyno.2 has not filed his affidavit. exs.b1 to b10 have been marked on the side of the opposite parties. ex.c1 is also marked. 5. the point for consideration is whether there was deficit area of the flat against the agreed built up area of 725 sq.ft. 6. the complainant had entered into agreement of sale dated with the opposite party no.2 for purchase of the flat wherein the plinth area of the flat is shown as 725 sft. the opposite party no.2 executed the sale deed on 12.12.2005 in favour of the complainant for the plinth area of the flat of 725 sft. the contention of the complainant is that the plinth area of the flat is 517 sft and not 725 sft as mentioned in the agreement of sale and sale deed. the copy of plan prepared by d.nageswara rao, mch licence engineer, hyderabad, the plinth area of the flat is 517 whereas the report of the commissioner shows the plinth area as 508 sft. in the light of the commissioners report, the deficit plinth area is of 115 sft. the opposite parties have the obligation to deliver the possession of the flat to the extent of plinth area of 725 sft. 7. the engineer and the commissioner unequivocally spoke of the deficit plinth area of 115 sft. the opposite parties had not raised any objection in the appeal as to the commissioners report and the engineers report showing the deficit plinth area as 115 sft. therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties had rendered deficient service by resorting to delivery of possession of the flat with plinth area of 517 sft as against the agreed and promised plinth area of 725 sft. the district forum had rightly calculated the amount at `1103/- per sft for the deficit area of 115 sft to the extent of `1,26,845/-. the appeal does not putforth any tenable plea so as to warrant interference with the findings recorded by the district forum. 7. in the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the district forum. the costs of the proceedings quantified at `2,000/-. time for compliance four weeks.
Judgment:

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member)

1. The opposite party no.2 is the appellant. He is the owner and possessor of the land measuring 314 sq.yards in ward no.11 block no.1 Green Hills Colony, Saroornagar Village and Mandal, R.R. District. The opposite party no.2 entered into construction agreement with the opposite party no.1 for development and construction of residential complex under the name and style of Manju Heavens. The opposite party no.1 obtained approval from the local authorities and began to construct the flats as per specifications. The complainant entered into an agreement of sale with the opposite partyno.2 on 19.5.2005 for purchase of double bed room flat No.F2 in 1st floor in Manju Heavens to an extent of 725 sq. feet including common area, for a consideration of `8,50,000/- which was later reduced to `8 lakhs. The complainant had paid `50,000/- towards advance on the date of agreement and the balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. After receiving the entire sale consideration the opposite parties executed sale deed on 12.12.2005. The complainant realized that the rooms of the flat were smaller than the agreed specifications. The opposite party no.1 constructed the flat of 517 sq.feet against the agreed specifications of 725 sq.feet and thus there was deficit area. The opposite party no.1 did not furnish the link document to the complainant. The complainant got issued notice on 10.9.2007 to the opposite parties with a request for refund of the price for the deficit area and to hand over the link documents.

2. The opposite party no.1 resisted the claim contending that the complainant did not enter into agreement of sale with it. The opposite party no.1 had not executed the sale deed for the flat in favour of the complainant. The sale transaction took place between the complainant and the opposite party no.1 and the sale consideration was paid to the opposite party no.2. The possession of the flat was delivered to the opposite party no.2 with whom the complainant entered into the agreement. The complainant having satisfied herself with the condition of the flat, had taken possession of it. She had not raised any objection with regard to the measurements of the flat. The plinth area of the flat is 725 sq.ft including the common area and area left for parking and area covered by walls. The construction was completed as per the terms of the development agreement.

3. The opposite party no.2 filed counter contending that the complainant had received the title deeds and other relevant documents for the purpose of obtaining loan from the bank and approached M/s Deshpande Chartered Architects and Engineers, Kaviduguda along with the documents. The chartered architects inspected on 20.9.2006 the flat and certified the valuation report stating that the built up area is 725 sq.feet inclusive of common area. After obtaining the bank loan the complainant has got the sale deed executed in her favour and took possession of the flat on 12.12.2005 without raising any objection.

4. The complainant has filed her affidavit and documents marked as Exs.A1 to A16. B.Raghu of the opposite party no.1 firm filed his affidavit. The opposite partyno.2 has not filed his affidavit. Exs.B1 to B10 have been marked on the side of the opposite parties. Ex.C1 is also marked.

5. The point for consideration is whether there was deficit area of the flat against the agreed built up area of 725 sq.ft.

6. The complainant had entered into agreement of sale dated with the opposite party no.2 for purchase of the flat wherein the plinth area of the flat is shown as 725 sft. The opposite party no.2 executed the sale deed on 12.12.2005 in favour of the complainant for the plinth area of the flat of 725 sft. The contention of the complainant is that the plinth area of the flat is 517 sft and not 725 sft as mentioned in the agreement of sale and sale deed. The copy of plan prepared by D.Nageswara Rao, MCH Licence engineer, Hyderabad, the plinth area of the flat is 517 whereas the report of the Commissioner shows the plinth area as 508 sft. In the light of the Commissioners report, the deficit plinth area is of 115 sft. The opposite parties have the obligation to deliver the possession of the flat to the extent of plinth area of 725 sft.

7. The Engineer and the Commissioner unequivocally spoke of the deficit plinth area of 115 sft. The opposite parties had not raised any objection in the appeal as to the Commissioners Report and the Engineers report showing the deficit plinth area as 115 sft. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties had rendered deficient service by resorting to delivery of possession of the flat with plinth area of 517 sft as against the agreed and promised plinth area of 725 sft. The District Forum had rightly calculated the amount at `1103/- per sft for the deficit area of 115 sft to the extent of `1,26,845/-. The appeal does not putforth any tenable plea so as to warrant interference with the findings recorded by the District Forum.

7. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District forum. The costs of the proceedings quantified at `2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.