Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/247/2019

M.Harish, S/o K.P.Sivaraman, 7/S2, Visu Lake View Apts, Plot No.12, Shanthipuram 2nd Street, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai 600 062. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.M/s Building Paradise Rep by its partner, B.Chandra, W/o Mr.Bakthavatsalam, No.18, 2nd Street, Eas - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.Venkatesh

23 Nov 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

                   TMT. Dr. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                            MEMBER  

 

F.A.No.247/2019

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.20/2017, dated 21.05.2018 on the file of the District Commission, Thiruvallur.)

 

 THE 23^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER-2021.

M. Harish,

S/o. K.P. Sivaraman,

7/S2  Visu Lake View Apartments,

Plot No.12, Shanthipuram 2^nd Street,

Thirumullaivoyal,  Chennai – 600 062.                                                                                                     Appellant/complainant 

                                                                                                         Vs

M/s.  Building Paradise,

Represented by its partner,

B. Chandra

W/o. Mr. Bakthavatsalam.

 

2.  G. Hemasri,

W/o.  Umashankar,

Both are residing at

No.18, 2^nd Street,

East Banu Nagar,

Ambattur, Chennai – 53.

Thiruvallur,  Tamil Nadu.                                                                                                                  Respondents/opposite parties  

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant:   M/s. S. Venkatesh, Advocate.   

Counsel for the Respondents 1&2/      :   Paper Publication Effected & Called absent.

           Opposite parties 1 & 2:                       

       

            This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 23.11.2021 and on hearing the arguments of the appellants and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT. (Open Court)   

1.     This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Thiruvallur made in C.C. No.20/2017, dated 21.05..2018, dismissing the complaint.         

2.       For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvallur.       

3.         The factual aspects giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;-

           The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the opposite parties are the builders. They offered a flat to the complainant measuring to an extent of 1100 sqft built up area First Floor bearing No.F3 along with 452 sqft undivided share of land in Survey Nos.598/1, 599, Ponnambalam Street, Ambattur, Chennai.  The complainant has paid the consideration towards the said land and Flat on various dates to which the opposite parties issued receipts to the complainant.  The complainant entered into construction agreement with the opposite parties vide document No.10337/2015, dated 15.07.2015 at S.R.O. Ambattur. The total cost of flat is Rs.25,63,400/-. The undivided share of land measuring 452 sq.ft. was sold to the complainant vide document No.10338/2015 dated 15.07.2015 at S.R.O. Ambattur for sale consideration of Rs.14,91,000/-.  As per the construction agreement, the opposite parties have to complete the project within 10 months from the date of construction agreement. But, the opposite parties took almost 18 months to complete the project.  The complainant applied for housing loan from the bank and the officials from the bank inspected the suit property and noticed various deviations. The construction was not carried out as per the agreed plan and hence the bank cancelled the loan applied by the complainant. The opposite parties had carried out the work only to an extent of 750 sqft instead of 1100 sqft. Hence, the complainant requested the opposite parties to reduce the construction cost.  Further, the complainant has also requested the opposite parties to engage an engineer to assess the value of the constructed flat but the opposite parties did not respond to the request of the complainant. The complainant so far has paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- till date but the opposite parties have not handed over the flat. Hence, the complainant has come forward with the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission for a direction to the opposite parties to rectify and carry out the work as per the building approval and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   

4.        The opposite parties did not appear before the District Commission and hence they were set ex-parte before the District Commission.  To prove his case, the complainant has filed a proof affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 to A10 before the District Commission.   

5.     After analyzing the evidences adduced by the complainant, the District Commission held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved over the order of dismissal, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.  

6.        Heard the submissions made by the appellant/complainant and perused the materials available on record.  The case of the complainant is that he has booked a flat with the opposite parties measuring 1100 sqft along with undivided share of land 452 sqft.  As per construction agreement, the time stipulated for construction is only for 10 months.  But, the opposite parties took almost 18 months to complete the project.  Moreover, flat was not handed over to the complainant till the date of complaint.   The agreement says that the construction area would be 1100 sqft but the actual construction area was only 750 sqft.  In spite of request made by the complainant to reduce the construction cost, the opposite parties have not come forward to reduce the same and therefore the complainant has filed a complaint. 

8.        To prove his case, the complainant has filed 10 documents among them Exhibits A7 and A8 are the Construction Agreement and sale deed respectively.  Though the Construction Agreement and Sale Deed were marked as documents, the complainant has not taken any steps before the District Commission to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the disputed property along with a qualified civil engineer to note down the defects and area of the construction, to prove his case.  It is well settled legal principle that mere pleading is not an evidence unless the same is proved in a manner known to law. Hence, in the absence of any tangible evidence to prove the averments made in the complaint the order of the dismissal passed by the District Commission cannot be found fault with.   Therefore, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission.                  

6.      In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission, Thirvallur made in C.C.No.20/2017, dated 21.05.2018.  There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.             

 

 

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                                                                                   R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                       PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Nov/2021