w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Manisha Tewari & Another v/s M/s. Prestige Estates Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

    Complaint Case No. CC/156 of 2014

    Decided On, 06 September 2021

    At, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bangalore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKAR
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI
    By, MEMBER

    For the Complainants: Ashok B. Patil, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: S.A. Mohammed Sadiq, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Ravishankar, Judicial Member

This complaint is filed against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service in not handing over the possession of the Flat as agreed. Hence, prays for direction against the Opposite Party to pay Rs.8,00,370/- as interest @ 7% per annum on the amount paid from 08/10/2008 till 30.07.2012 and Rs.5,40,000/- toward rents incurred and Rs.12,98,670-00 towards damages, Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards legal expenses.

The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

2. The complainant entered into an agreement of sale agreement on 08.06.2005 towards purchase of the Flat bearing No.14036, 3rd Floor of Block No.14 at Prestige Shantiniketan and agreed to pay a consideration amount of Rs.34,89,641/-. The complainant also paid some amount at the time of execution of the sale agreement. In the sale agreement, the Opposite Party had agreed to pay 7% interest in case of default of giving possession within 08.10.2008. Admittedly, the Opposite Party had given possession belatedly i.e., on 30.07.2012 and there is a delay of four years. Hence, prays for interest @ 7% as agreed along with other reliefs as prayed above.

3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and filed the version contending that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on their part and they have handed over the fully constructed apartment to the complainant to his satisfaction and sale deed was also executed. They are not liable to pay any interest on the said amount as there was no any intentional delay on their part. They have constructed the apartment without any delay. If there is any delay caused that can be due to a Rules, Notification of the Government, Municipal Authorities and court prohibiting the construction activities, non availability of the materials due to truckers strike, sand suppliers strike and the delay is only a Force majeure. Hence, submits there is no deficiency of service on their part. They have provided all the amenities and complainant by satisfying the construction quality and amenities had took the possession and sale deed was also executed. The Opposite Party further contended that the complainant had filed this complaint after lapse of five years after taking the possession of the apartment. There is a delay in filing the complaint. Under this ground also, the complaint is labile to be dismissed.

4. Both parties have field their affidavit evidence. Complainant has marked the documents at Ex.C1 to C4.

5. We have heard the arguments of both parties.

6. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

(1) Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?

(2) What Order?

7. The findings to the above points are;

(1) Negative.

(2) As per final Order

R E A S O N S:

Point Nos. (1) & (2):-

8. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents, there is no dispute that as per the sale agreement, complainant took possession of the apartment on 30.07.2012. But after taking possession, he complained that there is a delay in handing over the possession and as per the agreement of sale, the Opposite Party is liable to pay 7% interest on the paid amount. We noticed here that, the complainant had taken possession on 30.07.2012 and as per the sale agreement, the Flat has to be delivered by 1st September 2008, whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2014. Hence, there is a delay in filing the complaint. The Act provides to the complainant to file the complaint within two years time form the date of cause of action, whereas the complaint has been filed in the year 2014. Further, the complainant has taken possession on 30.07.2012 and also sale deed has been executed in favour of the complainant. Even the complainant has not filed this complaint well within time from 30.07.2012. He has filed the complaint after lapse of nearly two years and he has not explained the reasons for that delay. Moreover, the delay in handing over the possession on the part of Opposite Party is not intentional, but it is due to Force Majeure factor. There is no abnormal delay in handing over the possession to the complainant also. If any delay is caused to handover the possession is due to Rules, Not

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ification of the Government, Municipal Authorities and court prohibiting the construction activities, non availability of the materials due to truckers strike, sand suppliers strike. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. As such the complaint is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER: The complaint is dismissed. No costs. Send a copy of this order to both parties.
O R