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



M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructures Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Sr.C.S.Prasad v/s K. Saroja


Company & Directors' Information:- MEENAKSHI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2004PTC043603

Company & Directors' Information:- C K INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70200DL1997PLC089706

Company & Directors' Information:- D B INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U04520MP2006PTC018493

Company & Directors' Information:- R S INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201PB1997PLC020316

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U73100TG1992PLC013995

Company & Directors' Information:- I M B INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102DL2009PTC195079

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K M INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202CH2006PTC029960

Company & Directors' Information:- R 3 INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2014PLC268953

Company & Directors' Information:- P G M INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01119AP2007PTC054326

Company & Directors' Information:- N H INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209CH2010PTC032243

Company & Directors' Information:- Y D INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2009PTC037603

Company & Directors' Information:- C 4 INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2013PTC242843

Company & Directors' Information:- B S V R INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2009PTC064901

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND K INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2001PTC036581

Company & Directors' Information:- J L INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TN2008PTC066965

Company & Directors' Information:- T & C INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102TG2008PTC060995

Company & Directors' Information:- U R C INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC058894

Company & Directors' Information:- R V A INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2013PTC056289

Company & Directors' Information:- S R G INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74110DL2005PTC134967

Company & Directors' Information:- S R G INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2005PTC134967

Company & Directors' Information:- N. C. R. INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2008PTC034623

Company & Directors' Information:- P T INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2007PTC159635

Company & Directors' Information:- S. L. INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203PB2007PTC031300

Company & Directors' Information:- V C H INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45203KL2011PTC028762

Company & Directors' Information:- P A INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208TN2009PTC071929

Company & Directors' Information:- A E K INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309TN2009PTC071702

Company & Directors' Information:- K G N INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200DL2007PTC167982

Company & Directors' Information:- M A M INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109KA2012PTC062160

Company & Directors' Information:- P N INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2010PTC012647

Company & Directors' Information:- R S INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45206TN2013PTC091533

Company & Directors' Information:- J S K INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2005PTC156097

Company & Directors' Information:- S A INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB2013PTC192691

Company & Directors' Information:- L & W INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2008PTC182372

Company & Directors' Information:- K R R INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102TG2008PTC061194

Company & Directors' Information:- INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45200JH2007PTC012792

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND A INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45206UR2012PTC000345

Company & Directors' Information:- J & K INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40101JK2009PLC003034

Company & Directors' Information:- V. J. S. INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035636

Company & Directors' Information:- K R M INFRASTRUCTURES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209TG2011PTC073850

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201CH2001PTC024224

Company & Directors' Information:- V K INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400UP2008PTC034415

Company & Directors' Information:- K Y INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC127815

Company & Directors' Information:- A K C INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KL2010PTC025716

Company & Directors' Information:- D N D INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203PN2008PTC133243

Company & Directors' Information:- G V R INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209AP2008PTC059504

Company & Directors' Information:- K & K INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120KA2006PTC040900

Company & Directors' Information:- A & G INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31900PB2012PTC036358

Company & Directors' Information:- Y R INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201RJ2015PTC047298

Company & Directors' Information:- U D INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2010PTC203382

Company & Directors' Information:- J W INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2015PTC268554

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND G INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2004PTC147316

Company & Directors' Information:- A. N. Y. INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45206MH2013PTC243735

Company & Directors' Information:- J V S M S INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2010PTC070371

Company & Directors' Information:- K S V V INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209TG2010PTC069359

Company & Directors' Information:- A V R INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2009PTC186399

Company & Directors' Information:- A P S INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109DL2013PTC248564

Company & Directors' Information:- R R INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC150324

Company & Directors' Information:- S D P INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200HR2013PTC048666

Company & Directors' Information:- B P K INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203KA2009PTC049331

Company & Directors' Information:- T M R INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TG2007PTC054647

    F.A.Nos. 257, 258, 259, 260 of 2017 Against C.C.Nos. 558, 559, 560, 561 of 2015

    Decided On, 05 October 2017

    At, Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. PATIL VITHAL RAO
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: V. Srinivas, Advocate. For the Respondent: In person.



Judgment Text

Oral Order: (B.N. Rao Nalla, President)

These four appeals are preferred by the Developer/Opposite party against the order of the Dist. Forum awarding interest for the delayed payment, expenditure incurred for repair/replacement, compensation and costs for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. .

2. Though separate orders were passed in each of these complaints filed by the same complainant, in the light of the fact that common questions of fact and law arise, we deem it fit that a common order can be passed in all these matters. F.A.No.257 of 2017 is taken as a lead case.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

4. The case of the complainant in brief is that, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing Nos.6,7,18 & 19 admeasuring 800 sq. yards in Sy. Nos.50 & 51 of Khanamet Village, Serlingampally Mandal, R.R.District gave the said plots to the opposite party for development. The opposite party entered into Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney on 05.12.2005 with the complainant and neighboring plot owners conjointly. As per the terms of the said agreement, the opposite party initially agreed to deliver 40% of the constructed area long with proportionate undivided share of land and parking and later the said sharing ratio was enhanced to 50% in the Supplementary Development Agreement dated 19.02.2008 and shall complete the construction in all respect as per the specifications and terms stated in the Development Agreement. As per clause no.3 of the said agreement, the opposite party shall complete the construction within 24 months from the date of sanction/permission for construction by Huda or Serilingampally Municipality subject to exception of force majeure. If the opposite party fails to complete the construction within that period the opposite party shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs.3/- per sft per month for the delayed period for the share of the constructed area of the complainant. Approval plan for construction of residential complex was obtained from the GHMC on 27.05.2008 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the complex shall have to be completed within 24 months from 27.05.2008 i.e., by 26.05.2010. But the opposite party failed to deliver possession of her share of flats within 24 months. After a great deal of persistent persuasion, the opposite party had completed the construction with lopsided structural defects such as endemic leakages in bath rooms, cracks on walls and ceiling and delivered the possession of the subject flat only on 03.03.2014 and thereby caused huge rental loss to the complainant. . Out of the four flats falling to the share of the complainant, one flat bearing No.602 was delivered with an inordinate delay of 3 years 7monthsand 6 days. Hence, filed the complaint praying to direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant the rent for the delayed period of 3 years 7 months and 6 days of Rs.1,68,480/- + Rs.6,73,200 = Rs.8,41,680/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 03.03.2014; to reimburse to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,85,950/- towards the expenditure incurred for the repair/replacement/installation work together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.30,000/-.

5. The opposite party resisted the case contending that they paid a sum of Rs.15 lakhs drawn on UCO Bank, Banjara Hills Branch, towards deposit to the complainant at the time of execution of the Development agreement cum GPA and that the deposit was agreed to be returned after handing over of the possession of the flats. The complainant has raised all frivolous claims to avoid the refund of deposit amount and filed this false complaint. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant represented to them that she is the absolute owner of the plots bearing Nos.6,7,18 and 19 totally admeasuring area is 800 Sq.yards, in survey No.50&51 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the complainant entered into a development agreement cum General power of Attorney vide No.9586/2005 dated 5.12.2005 with the opposite party and authorized the multistoried building. The complainant further represented that she has perfect marketable title over the said property. The complainant in fact as per clause 10(D) of the development agreement declared that she is absolute owner of the plot and the same is free from Encumbrances and Court proceedings etc, and further undertook to indemnify the opposite party against all losses that may be incurred due to the defective title as per clause 10(D) and 10 (F) of the development agreement. As per the terms of the Registered Development agreement vide NO.9586/2005 dated 5.12.2005 the plot owners have themselves stated that they have the perfect title over the said plots and also undertook to indemnify the developer against defective title and against any losses that may be incurred on account of any encumbrances, charges court proceedings in respect of the property. The opposite party entered into similar agreements with other plot owners. On behalf of the complainant and other plot owners, an application was made to the Government for amalgamation of plots into a compact block to make the same viable for development into a multistoried building. The Government issued necessary orders for such amalgamation vide No.23370/M1/2007 dated 24-09-2007. The opposite party started construction of the residential complex comprising of Cellar and Sub Cellar and 17 upper floors. At this juncture to the utter shock of the opposite party, the vendors of the complainant namely Mr.D.Chandra Mohan Reddy & others filed a suit in O.S.No.337 of 2008 against the opposite party for an injunction and the interim injunction was granted against the opposite party from making any construction and the same was in force till 18-01-2010. The opposite party was therefore prevented from making any construction till 18-01-210 from the date of permission i.e., 27-5-2008. The opposite party sustained huge financial loss due to this unforeseen delay caused because of the deficiencies over the title of the complainant. The opposite party with great difficulty settled the matter with the said Mr.D.Chandra Mohan Reddy and others at a huge cost and got the suit withdrawn as settled out of the Court. It is because of the said reasons that there was delay in construction and delivery of possession. Due to the agitation for separate statehood of Telangana there was loss of several working days and also there was severe shortage of cement and other construction material. The said factors impacted the construction in progress. Inspite of such adverse conditions the opposite party still managed to complete the building by raising finances from its own sources. The opposite party could complete such massive structure of Ground plus 17 upper floors including two cellars of parking in a commendable period. Further the opposite party also submitted that they provided all the amenities in the project. It is denied that the construction work was delayed due to shortage of money as money was diverted to power project. The complainant brought such defects to the notice of the opposite party and subsequently got rectified the defects by spending Rs.24,750/-. As per the agreed specification the opposite party has provided teak wood door. However the complainant, as her own accord, might have replaced the main door as per her choice. It is also denied that electric wiring and other fittings are substandard quality and the complainant replaced the same. The alleged receipts are brought up documents. As per the specifications, the opposite party need not provide Bath Tub/cubical in the Master bedroom. The GHMC issued Occupancy certificate after thorough inspection of the project. Hence, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6. In proof of her case, the complainant filed her Evidence Affidavit and got Ex.A1 to A19 marked. While on behalf of the opposite party, Sri P.Ramakrishna, the Authorized Signatory has filed his affidavit and got Exs.B1 to B11 marked.

7. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,79,010/- for causing delay in handing over the possession of the flat along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization;. to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the expenditure incurred for repair/replacement/installation work together with compensation of Rs.25,000 and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

8. Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite party preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The District Forum failed to consider the date of completion of building i.e., on 19.10.2012 and to that effect the opposite party also made application for occupancy certificate. The District Forum failed to consider Ex.B5, a copy of interim injunction restraining the appellant from construction and Ex.B7 which shows that the appellant settled the claim with the vendors of the complainant out of court. It also failed to consider Ex.B11 wherein the predecessors in the title of the complainant filed the partition of the project land which includes the land of the complainant. The facts that such a suit was filed for partition shows that the complainant herself committed breach of warranty of the title. The appellant has paid Rs.15 lakhs towards deposit vide Ex.B10 and the District Forum has not made any reference to that effect. The District forum having held that the respondent/complainant failed to produce any evidence affidavit of the concerned persons in Exs.A13 to A17 granted Rs.one lakh towards expenditure incurred for repairs. The interest granted @ 9% p.a. on the contract price of Rs.3/- per sft is impermissible. Though there was any loss to the complainant the District Forum erred in awarding Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Hence, the opposite party prayed to allow the appeal by dismissing the complaint.

9. Counsel for the appellant and the husband of the respondent/complainant are present and were heard. Both parties have filed their written arguments.

10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief.

11. The undisputed facts are that complainant and opposite party entered into a registered development agreement dt.5-12-2005 and the opposite party agreed to deliver 50% of the constructed area along with proportionate undivided share of land. As per the development agreement clause (3) the opposite party shall complete the construction within 24 months from the date of sanction /permission for construction by HUDA and if the opposite party failed to complete the construction within 24 months, the opposite party shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3 per Sft. per month for the delayed period for the share of the constructed area of the complainant.

12. The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation as the possession of the flats was delivered prior to 25.02.2013 and the complaint is filed beyond 2 years from the date of delivery of possession. We do not see any merit in the said contention for the reason that the opposite parties issued possession certificate on 03.03.2014 and the complaint was filed on 02.11.2015 i.e., within two years of the limitation period. Therefore, the complaint is filed well within the period of limitation.

13. The contention of the opposite party that the District Forum failed to consider Ex.B8 from which it can be seen that opposite party has made application for the Occupancy Certificate on 19.10.2012 and from that it is evident that the construction of the apartments was completed by that time. It may be true that the construction had completed by the said date and the GHMC issued the Occupancy Certificate on 25.02.2013 and as such the opposite parties contended that they had delivered possession of the flats prior to 25.02.2013. To prove the said contention the opposite party has not filed any document to show that it had delivered possession prior to 25.02.2013 and on the other hand the complainant filed possession certificate dated 03.03.2014 which certifies that they have handed over possession of Flat No.502, Phoenix Block 5th floor, with a built up area of 2340 (including common areas) in ' Meenakshi’s Sky Lounge Project' situated at Survey No.50 & 51, Khanamet Village, Near Hitex Exhibition Centre Serilingampalli Mandal Hyderabad'. If really the opposite party had delivered possession before 25.02.2013 it ought to have filed possession certificate showing that it had already delivered possession prior to the said date. Moreover, the Occupancy Certificate and Possession certificates are two different certificates. The Occupancy Certificate is to be obtained from the civic bodies once the builder complied with all the required building standards, local laws and it is safe to occupy. It provides no objection to occupy the builder under reference for its specified use. The occupancy certificate is issued only once the building has been completed in all respects and can be occupied. On the other hand Possession Certificate of the flat is valid only with Occupancy Certificate. We do not understand why the opposite party did not deliver possession to the flat owners after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, if at all, as the per the version of the opposite party that it had delivered the possession prior to 25.02.2013 why it had issued Possession Certificate to the complainant on 03.03.2014. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the date on which the opposite party made application for the issuance of Occupancy Certificate what is necessary is that when the opposite party delivered the possession of the flat to the flat owners.

14. It is also contended by the opposite party that Ex.B5 which is a copy of the interim injunction restraining the appellant from construction of the project and Ex.B7 which shows that the appellant settled the claim with the Vendors and the District Forum is totally ignored the said fact which is the crux of the case. The allegation of the appellant that the District Forum ignored the said fact is not correct, in fact, the District Forum has clearly stated that ' as per the clause (3) of Development Agreement, the opposite party shall complete the construction of building within 24 months from the date of Ex.B7 order i.e., 18.01.2010 to on or before 18.1.2012. But the opposite party handed over the physical possession of the property on 03.03.2014 i.e., with delay of 25 months and 15 days'. From the said order it can be seen that the District Forum had calculated the delay of handing over possession from the date of order i.e., 18.01.2010 to 24 months which expires on 18.01.2012 but the opposite party delivered possession after two years i.e., on 03.03.2014. The opposite party also submitted that complainant herself committed breach of warranty of the title and that she did not take any steps to protect the title in such pending suits. O.S.No.1096 of 2008 filed by the plaintiff is Partition Suit and she filed the said suit as she could not get her due share of sale proceeds of the property. Even if there is any adverse orders in the suit, it is the flat owners who are going to suffer with the said order but not the complainant. Therefore, the said allegation of the opposite party that the District Forum had ignored the said orders is not correct.

15. It is also contended by the opposite party that it had paid Rs.15 lakhs to the complainant towards deposit while executing the Development Agreement cum GPA and the said deposit was agreed to be returned after handing over of the possession of the flats. In support of their case the opposite party filed copy of letter dated 23.06.2016 issued by the UCO bank wherein the bank had certified that they have paid the amount for the cheque No.929386 dated 03.10.2006 favouring the complainant. Except that the appellant letter there is nothing on record to show that the said amount was paid to the complainant towards deposit while executing the development agreement and the complainant no where stated that she has to return the said deposit after handing over of the possession of the flats. Moreover the complainant contended that the Bank in collusion with the appellant had issued the said certificate to the appellant without the knowledge of complainant and for that the complainant had also lodged complaint in Central Crime Station Hyderabad against the Manager, UCO Bank and the employee of the bank and the same was registered vide FIR No.91 of 2017 dated 12.06.2017 u/s 406, 420 and 409 R/w 120(B) IPC and the case is under investigation.

16. The other contention of the opposite party is that though the District Forum held that the complainant failed to produce any evidence affidavit of the concerned persons in Exs.A13 to A17 granted Rs.one lakh towards expenditure incurred for repairs. The allegation of the complainant is that there are various discrepancies/defects in the construction i.e. endemic leakages in bath rooms and to walls, cracks to walls and roof endangering safety of the residents due to substandard construction. The quality of wood used for doors and frames is very bad. There is also electrical wiring and fittings were of inferior quality and though the complainant personally requested the opposite party in attending to repairs and replacements, the complainant engaged private workers and attended to repairs and replacement of electrical wire and other fittings. Thus, according to the Complainant, the whole defects need to be repaired to make it livable, for which the complainant has to spend Rs.2,86,950/- towards repairs and replacements.

17. To prove the discrepancies/defects in the construction of the flat, the complainant did not produce, on record, any expert report. In order to ascertain the quality of construction and the material used by the promoter, the complainant did not request the District Forum for the appointment of any Civil Engineer/Architect, regarding the allegations about the construction, made by the complainant, in her complaint . Thus, in the absence of expert report, it could not be ascertained that there were discrepancies/defects in the construction of the flat or that the complainant incurred Rs.2,85,950/- on the repairs and replacements. The District Forum was, thus, wrong in awarding consolidated compensation of sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, merely on the basis of some bills only and without there being any expert evidence, in this regard. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, are liable to be set aside.

18. Moreover, at the time of taking possession of the flat, the complainant did not raise any objection, that she was not ready to obtain possession, as the same had been delayed, or that they be given compensation, as provided in Clause-3 of the agreement, referred to above. The complainant also did not write any letter to the opposite party, or raise any protest, before the opposite party that she is taking possession of the flat, but reserved her right to claim compensation as per Clause-3 of the agreement. Yet, as there is a clause in the agreement for payment of Rs.3/- per sft per month for the delayed period the opposite party is bound to pay that amount for

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the delayed period but not interest on that amount. Hence, the award passed by the District Forum to pay interest @ 9% on the said amount which in our view is liable to be set aside while confirming the compensation and costs awarded by the District Forum. 19. Keeping in view the discussions held above, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is upheld to the extent of payment of Rs.1,79,010/- towards causing delay in handing over the possession of the flat and its order is set aside with regard to awarding of interest @ 9% per annum. The order of the District Forum in awarding expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- incurred towards repair/replacement/installation work is also set aside while confirming the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the District Forum and costs of Rs.5,000/-. In the result appeal is allowed directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,79,010/- towards causing delay in delivery of possession of the flat to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks. F.A.No.258 of 2017 In the result appeal is allowed directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,79,010/- towards causing delay in delivery of possession of the flat to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks. F.A.No.259 of 2017 In the result appeal is allowed directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2,78,843/- towards causing delay in delivery of possession of the flat to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks. F.A.No.260 of 2017 In the result appeal is allowed directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2,78,843/- towards causing delay in delivery of possession of the flat to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
O R