ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. The present appeal is being filed against the order of Andhra Pradesh State Commission in Original Complaint No. 41/1994 passed on 26.12.2002 whereby the State Commission was pleased to allow the complaint filed by the respondent and directed the appellant No. 1, M/s. Patel Constructions Company, and appellant No. 2, M.S. Taskeen, Managing Director to convey the flat Nos. 203, 206 and 207 to the first, second and third respondents respectively in the multi-storeyed complex bearing No. 10-5-2/1/2, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
The three original complainants, Dr.
Mohd. Amjadullah, respondent No. 1, Mr.
Viquaruddin Ahmed Ansari, respondent No. 2
and Dr. Musthaw Ahmed, respondent No. 3
were before the State Commission. Each
separately entered into an agreement in 1994
with the opposite party No. 1 who is builder
for purchase of a flat each in a building being
constructed by the builder. Complainants 1, 2
and 3 respectively are to get plot Nos. 203, 206
and 207. The consideration agreed upon was Rs.
2,52,645/-, Rs. 2,80,368/- and 2,00,000/-
respectively. All the three agreements provided
for an advance payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- each
at the time of signing of the agreements. The
agreements also provided that the remaining
amount should be paid in cash in regular
instalments and that final payment should be
made at the time of handing over of the flat.
The flats were to be ready within 18 months’
time. The builder is required to intimate that
the flat is ready for delivery of possession and
final payment was to be made within 15 days
of such intimation.
3. There is no dispute that the three complainants paid the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. Subsequently each complainant paid two more instalments on 3.1.1995 and 30.5.1995. After this, the position was that complainant No. 1 was to pay the residual balance of Rs. 52,645/-; complainant No. 2, a balance of 80,365/-; and complainant No. 3 paid the entire amount by 30.5.1995.
4. The allegation of the complainants is that, after recovering substantial payments towards the promised flats, the opposite party did not intimate them about the fact that the flats were nearing completion and are available for delivery of possession. The complainants discovered that the flats were almost complete on visiting the site. It is alleged that O.Ps. were interested in selling off the flats to some other parties from whom he could extract higher amounts. Suspecting this, the complainants served legal notices dated 1.5.1996 on the opposite parties. The opposite parties in turn replied the legal notices on 10.5.1996, alleging that the complainants did not pay instalments in time and hence the amounts earlier paid by them minus an amount of 20% is liable to be forfeited and thus he has a right to cancel the agreements. Aggrieved by this, three complainants jointly filed a complaint on 9.6.1997 before the State Commission with a prayer that the opposite parties be directed to register the promised flats in their names or alternatively to refund the amount paid with 24% interest.
5. Before the State Commission, the opposite parties took a plea that because of delay in payment of instalments, the original agreements were cancelled and that the complainants had entered into fresh agreements to get altogether different flats and that the earlier payments made by them have been adjusted towards payments for the new flats. The State Commission held that there is no truth whatsoever for this argument and allowed the complaint, directing that the opposite parties either register three flats, in question in the names of the complainants or refund the amounts received from the complainants with 24% interest. Payment of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for each of the complainants was also ordered, along with cost of Rs. 15,000/-. The present appeal is against this order.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and heard the arguments. We find that there is no merit whatsoever in the appeal. The copies of the sale agreements with the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 brought on record are dated 28.12.1994, 28.6.1994 and 23.12.1994 respectively. The agreements do not indicate the dates on which instalments are to be paid. The relevant columns have been left blank. The amount of each instalment have also not been indicated except in the case of respondent No. 3. The flats are required to be completed in 18 months. Respondent No. 3 paid the entire amount by 30.5.1995 that is, within 5 months of the agreement. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 paid the major part of the price by 30.5.1995 and showed their willingness to pay the balance as soon as the appellant indicated that the flats were ready and that possession could be taken.
7. On the other hand, the appellants filed on record, copies of notices which were allegedly issued to all the three respondents, charging them of a dereliction in paying the instalments on time and threatening to cancel the agreements and directing them to pay the amount within 15 days. All these three notices are dated 27.11.1994 when the agreements to sale these flats to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are themselves dated 28.12.1994 and 23.12.1994, how could the appellant serve default notices on 27.11.1994 ? It is clear that all three notices are fabricated by the appellant.
8. The plea that the matter is of civil nature and does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act is without any merit. The builder agreed to sell certain flats to the respondents at a price but he has failed in this. On being questioned by us he could not show any letter which was required to be sent to the respondents to intimate that the flats are ready for delivery of possession and final payment was to be made within 15 days of such intimation in the year 1995. He has failed to do this. This amounts certainly to a deficiency in service. The argument that the original agreements have been cancelled and that the respondents entered into new agreements has no force at all. In his legal notice of 10.5.1996 also, the appellant does not say a word about entering into new agreements for different flats. With the above discussions, we feel there is no merit in this appeal. There is no jurisdictional error or legal irregularity in the order of the State Commission for us to interfere. Accordingly Appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- each to be paid to the three respondents.