The OP had promised the Complainant that he is a capable developer and would deliver a fully constructed Flat within two years. However, the OP failed to do so even after the parties entered into sale and construction agreements. Excuses of procedural delay in receiving permissions were given. It should be noted that the project is still incomplete. Thus, the Commission was right in holding the acts of the OP as using unfair trade practices and providing a deficient service to the Complainant. This was observed in the matter of D. Vijay Krishna v. M/s G.R. Promoters, [CC/564/2019] presented before the Hon’ble Presiding Member Mr. Ravishankar and Member Mrs. Sunita Channabasappa.
The Complainant alleged deficiency of service and prayed for a compensation of Rs. 56,07,900 with interest from the OP. The delay in possession also made the complainant devoid of facilities such as the swimming pool, garden and other such amenities; but has been directed to pay the electricity charges. Further, the OP began avoiding contact with the complainant, was always unavailable in their office and that is why the Complainant resorted to take up legal action.
It was observed that failure of OP in delivering the flat reduced the market value of the unit, this couple with the fact that complainant was also incurring electricity charges, was putting the complainant at a great disadvantage. The Contract between the parties also stipulates a penalty of Rs 15,000/- per month at present by the OP. The OP was absent for the proceedings, even though he received notice. Thus, the State Commission opined the following, “We have perused the documents. The claim of the complainant is that in spite of payments and request, the Opposite Party failed to deliver the possession of the Flat to the complainant and after receiving the Flat price and as per the notice dated:16.09.2019 and 23.09.2019, the Opposite Party has not refunded the amount to the complainant till today, has to be believed and accepted. Moreover, in spite of service of notice, from this Commission, the Opposite Party was not appeared before the Commission. Hence, Opposite Party has been placed as Ex-parte and thereby the Opposite Party has accepted the averments and allegations made by the complainant. Taking into consideration of facts and evidence on record and discussion made here, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party has been proved.”
Judgement Reviewed by Vagisha Sagar