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

M/s. Sri Sai Akhil Constructions, Rep. by its Representative/Proprietor, Malladi Veera Venkata Satya Surya Nagendra v/s Tammira Subba Lakshmi

Company & Directors' Information:- SATYA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45500AP2018PTC108549

Company & Directors' Information:- SURYA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC022142

Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2005PTC150665

Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109JK2000PTC002046

Company & Directors' Information:- SAI INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203MP2002PTC015264

Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098902

Company & Directors' Information:- LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1981PTC009086

Company & Directors' Information:- SRI LAKSHMI SAI CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45101TG2006PTC050672

Company & Directors' Information:- SRI VENKATA SAI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1993PTC016723

Company & Directors' Information:- SAI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45204DL2009PTC191555

Company & Directors' Information:- SRI CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1995PTC022231

    R.P.No. 39 of 2014 Against I.A.No. 132 of 2013 in P.P.No. 14 of 2012 in C.C.No. 68 of 2008,District Forum-II, East Godavari at Rajahmundry

    Decided On, 21 August 2014

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: R.Venkata Krishna, Advocate. For the Respondent: M/s. M. Hari Babu, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Oral Order: (GopalakrishnaTamada, President)

The dispute between the parties is with regard to payment of balance sale consideration towards purchase of the flat built by the opposite party.

The brief facts which may be required to be narrated are as under:

The opposite party has come up with a building complex and the complainant is one of the purchaser. He purchased a flat from out of the said complex for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,65,000/- and he paid an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- towards sale consideration and has to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- towards balance sale consideration. As the flat was not delivered, the complainant approached the District Forum and filed C.C.No.68/2008 for handing over possession of the flat or in the alternative for refund of the said amount of Rs.4,40,000/- which was paid by him with interest.

On notice, the opposite parties entered appearance and after giving sufficient opportunity and considering the entire material produced by both the parties, the District Forum has come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for and accordingly allowed the said complaint and directed the opposite party to hand over vacant possession of flat on payment of Rs.1,25,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the opposite parties with interest @ 18% p.a. or in the alternative to pay back the said amount of Rs.4,40,000/- which was paid by the complainant.

Against the said order, the complainant approached the District Forum and filed F.A.No.302/2010 stating that he has paid more than Rs.4,40,000/. After hearing both sides, this Commission has concurred with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and held that the total sale consideration that was paid was not Rs.4,40,000/- but was Rs.5,05,000/-. Be that as it may, the complainant filed P.P.No.14/2012 to hand over vacant physical possession of the flat and paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards principal and Rs.38,000/- towards interest i.e. a total sum of Rs.98,000- towards the balance sale consideration. In the said P.P. the opposite party filed I.A.No.132/2013 stating that the balance sale consideration cannot be Rs.98,000/- but it shall be Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as observed by the District Forum in its order passed in C.C.No.68/2008. The District Forum dismissed the said I.A.No.132/2013 by its order dated 02-5-2014 in the following manner:

'Heard the Advocate. We verified the Appeal commission order.

As per the order of the State Commission, the respondent has deposited the amount. Hence petition is not maintainable and dismissed'.

As against the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

Heard both counsel. We are totally in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. The said sale consideration of Rs.5,05,000/- was paid before filing the said C.C. before the District Forum and in those circumstances the question of payment of Rs.4,40,000/- only as observed by the District Forum does not arise. As observed by this Commission, the total sale consideration which was paid is Rs.5,05,000/- and the balance sale consideration payable was only Rs.60,000/- and according to the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, he calculated interest on that Rs.60,000/- and thus arrived at a figure i.e. Rs.98,000/- and the said amount was deposited and in those circumstances, the said stand shall be accepted but not the stand of the opposite party that the balance sale consideration is still Rs.1,25,000/- and it has to be paid with interest at 18% p.a. as observed by the District Forum. As stated supra, the sale consideration which was paid by the respondent/complainant was Rs.5,05,000/- even before he approached the District Forum and the balance sale consideration to be paid is only Rs.60,000/-. In those circumstances, the calculations made by the respondent/co

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

mplainant alone is correct and acceptable. Now that an amount of Rs.98,000/- was deposited by the respondent/complainant the petitioner/opposite party herein is directed to withdraw the said amount and hand over vacant possession of the said flat to the complainant forthwith on completion of the entire works which are to be made to the said flat Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.