National Consumer Disputes Redressal
V. Kalyanam And Anr. vs Navin Housing And Properties (Pvt.) ... on 10 September, 2007
Equivalent citations: 1(2008)CPJ415(NC)
ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Having heard the learned Counsel, we are getting an impression that the complainants are trying to abuse the process for their ulterior purpose.
2. It is notable that V. Kalyanam and K. Malini, the complainants/appellants are joint owners of property at 28, K.B. Dasan Road, Teynampet, Chennai-18. They had entered into two separate deeds of agreement prepared by Mr. R. Kumar, the 2nd opposite party and the promoter Director of the 1st opposite party-Navin Housing and Properties (Pvt) Ltd. on 23rdand 24thNovember, 1994. Supplementary letter was signed on 24.11.1995 by the Executive Director of 1st opposite party.
3. As per terms of the agreement, opposite parties developed the plots in flats (see Annexure 'A' of the Agreement) out of which, opposite party No. 1 was to retain 40% and the remainder 60% was to be handed over to the complainant Nos. 2 and 330% each.
4. The first opposite party would retain the entire first floor and one large flat on the third floor. The 2nd complainant would have the entire ground floor and 50% of the small flat on the 3rd floor. The 2nd and the 3rd complainants were scheduled to go abroad for a short while and keeping in view of the fact of the building construction, they executed a power of attorney dated 30.1.1995 in favour of Mrs. P. Bhavani, the Executive Director and wife of the 2nd opposite party so that there would be no delay in the execution of the project on account of their absence. As per the agreement between the parties, the construction was to be completed within 15 months of the sanction by M.M.D.A. M.M.D.A. sanction was received by the end of June 1995 and as per the agreement, the possession was also scheduled to be delivered within 15 months i.e. by 31.9.1996. However, even by the end of September, 1996, the project was not progressing in any manner in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The complainants wrote to the builder, Mr. Kumar on 16.12.1996 and 21.12.1996 bringing to his notice the delay in executing the projects. The complainant Nos. 2 and 3 also wanted a definite undertaking from the opposite parties as to the completion of the works and also enclosed a draft of work schedule with their letter dated 21.12.1996.
5. Some delay, etc. took place but the matter was settled between the parties. Ex. B22 was the receipt dated 4.2.1997 given by the 2nd and 3rd complainants, which is being reproduced below:
Received a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 (Rupees one lakh seventy-five thousand only) from Navin Housing & Properties (P) Ltd., this 1st day of February, 1997, in full and final negotiated settlement of all our claims under our letters dated 16.12.1996, 21.12.1996, 1.1.1997, 14.1.1997 and 20.1.1997 and your letter dated 24.11.1994 and your undertaking dated 22.12.1996; in connection with the development of our property at No. 28, Bharathidasan Salai, Teynampet, Madras - 600 018. However, the balance works regarding flooring and bathroom tiles, etc., shall be completed by Navin Housing & Properties (P) Ltd.
6. Thus, it could be seen that all the claims of the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 had been fully satisfied and the complainant Nos. 2 amd 3 had received a sum of Rs. 1,75,000. After execution of the said documents on 3rd March, 1997 vide Ex. B23, there is a Deed of Acknowledgement issued by the 2nd and 3rd complainants. Relevant paragraphs of the Deed are as under:
(4) That the party of the First Part has this day received and taken over the flats mentioned in para 2 supra along with 30% undivided shares of Schedule A land retained by him in entire and full satisfaction; and the Party of the First Part hereby acknowledges the full and final compliance of all the obligations of the Party of the Second Part.
(5) That the party of the Pint Part hereby acknowledges that he has no further claims, demands against the party of the Second Part and be hereby admits and agrees that there are no further obligations whatsoever expected from or pending with the party of the Second Part.
(16) It is hereby agreed and declared that the walls, floors and ceilings separating the flat/apartments agreed to be built for the party of the First Part from the remaining flats/apartments shall be deemed to be partial walls, floors and ceiling and shall be deemed maintained and repaired accordingly and that the spouts, septic tanks, overhead tanks, fall pipes and water pipes which serve the flats/apartments shall jointly be maintained and repaired and the cost there borne by the owners and occupiers jointly for the time being of the same, provided always that the party of the First Part and his/her successors-in-title shall not by virtue of this agreement or the ownership of the undivided share in the land, acquire any right of light or air or any other right which would prejudice enjoyment of the same by the owners of the other flats/apartments.
Seeing all these things, it is evident that the complainant after having settled the dispute, the complainant could neither reopen the dispute nor could enlarge the scope of the dispute. After the construction was completed, completion certificate was issued by MMDA on 7.10.1996.
7. The mala fides of the complainant became evident that on 19.11.1996, the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 cancelled the Power of Attorney stripping the rights of the opposite parties calling upon the opposite parties to furnish an undertaking to do extra work and by 22.12.1996, the opposite party executed an undertaking as was required. But, en 31.12.1996, the complainant Nos. 2 and 3 refused to come to the Registrar's office to transfer the opposite party's share. On 31.1.1997, the complainant executed a Deed of Ratification and on 4.2.11997, the complainants executed a discharge voucher after receiving a sum of Rs. 1,75,000. On 3.3.1997, a sale deed of acknowledgement came to be executed by the 2nd complainant. On 12.5.1997, and on 10.12.1997, the the 3rd complainant was informed and asked to take delivery of the flats. On 20.4.1998, a deed of acknowledgement came to be executed by the 3rd complainant.
8. If in the aforesaid circumstances the State Commission has held that there was absolutely no merit for the complainant and revision petition be dismissed. We cannot take the view other than the view taken by the State Commission.
Consequently, for the reasons mentioned above, the First Appeal stands dismissed.