C.C. 178 of 2013. Case: Ujjwal Kumar Ghatak Vs Nakkana Chandrsekhar. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberC.C. 178 of 2013
Party NameUjjwal Kumar Ghatak Vs Nakkana Chandrsekhar
CounselFor Appellant: C.R. Vasantha Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: Anjana Devi, Advocate
JudgesGopala Krishna Tamada, J. (President) and R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member
IssueNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138
CitationIII (2014) CPJ 233
Judgement DateJuly 22, 2014
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member

  1. The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to obtain the plan approval for the complainants flat i.e., Flat No. TF-1, in third floor, 'Sree Vaibav Enclave', measuring 1350 sft as per sale deed document No. 6606/2012 dated 19.11.2012 from Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Authorities by meeting the necessary charges and expenses within period stipulated by this Commission, to refund balance unaccounted amount paid for the registration charges to the complainants with @ 24% perform 19.11.2012 till the date of payment, to pay costs of Rs. 30,000 for fixation of the grills and Rs. 40,000 for installation electrical gadgets with interest @ 24% p.a., to refund Rs. 1,75,920 towards cost of non-existing excess extent of 14.66 sq. yards @ Rs. 12,000 per sq. yard besides cost of registration charges at the pro rata rate, paid for non-existing area along with interest @ 24% p.a. from 19.11.2012, to provide sufficient car parking or refund Rs. 50,000 with interest @ 24% p.a. from 19.11.2012, to complete the pending work, to compensate the cost of the flat at the present market rate or refund Rs. 29,30,000 with interest @ 24% p.a. from 19.11.2012, to pay Rs. 30,00,000 towards compensation for mental agony, etc. and costs of Rs. 20,000. The averments of the complaint are that the first complainant who is the husband of the second complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite parties to purchase the Flat No. TF-1 in third floor, admeasuring 1350 sft together with 38.96 sq. yards of undivided and unspecified share out of 233.66 sq. yards for the for consideration of Rs. 35,00.000 and paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 on 17.11.2012, Rs. 2,00,000 on 26.11.2012, Rs. 50,000 on 4.1.2013 through cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank, Visakhapatnam and paid in cash a sum of Rs. 22,00,000 drawn from Punjab National Bank on 19.11.2012. The complainants agreed to pay balance amount of Rs. 9,00,000 on completion of the construction work of the Flat which the opposite parties promised to do within three months therefrom.

  2. The first opposite party executed registered sale deed bearing document No. 6606/2012 on 19.11.2012 on receipt of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 in cash from the complainant. The complainants deposited as security with the opposite party No. 1, three cheques dated 19.11.2012 for Rs. 3,00,000, 3,00,000 and Rs. 4,00,000 which were agreed to be returned to them after the opposite parties received the balance sale consideration of the Flat. The complainants paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 to the opposite parties towards registration charges, stamp duty and demanded the opposite parties to show the particulars of the expenses which the opposite parties failed to furnish to the complainants.

  3. The complainants requested the opposite parties to complete the pending work of the Flat worth of Rs. 3,30,000 such as fixing the main door, window and balcony safety grills painting, polishing and balance wood work. The complainants also requested the opposite parties to rectify the defect as to replacement of defective tiles, electrical wiring, sanitary fitting and plumbing work and to provide additional electrical provision as agreed upon, Stair case door on the terrace, sun shade and cementing work to prevent water from gushing in to the stairs from terrace, sufficient car parking.

  4. On failure of the opposite parties to complete the pending work and rectify the defects, the complainants got the work done such as main door grills by spending Rs. 30,000, electrical gadgets worth Rs. 40,000. After the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation demolished the building constructed by the opposite parties on the adjacent site of the Flat, the complainant on enquiry came to...

To continue reading

Request your trial