BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Dr Justice S. TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT
Thiru K. BASKARAN JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.NO.210/2014
(Against order in CC.NO.14/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Chengalpattu)
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building M/s. K. Sambasivam
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore Counsel for
Chennai – 600 008 Appellant / Opposite party
Vs.
A. Manikandan
No.8, Plot No.12, II Floor
M.K.Reddy Street M/s. Vasugi Ramanan
Tambaram Counsel for
Chennai- 600 045 Respondent/ Complainant
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.15.10.2012 in CC.No.14/2007.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothsides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:
Dr. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN, PRESIDENT (Open court)
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/ opposite party challenging the order of the District Forum, Chengalpattu in CC.No.14/2007 dt.15.10.2012.
2. The Respondent/ Complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chengalpattu, praying for a direction to the appellant/ opposite party to allot Plot No.16/D/18 NH 2 at Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu town, alongwith compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on the ground that the complainant had sent a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.150000/- for allotment of a plot to the opposite party, but the opposite party without even informing the complainant sold the plot.
3. The District Forum, considering the submissions made on bothsides, had allowed the complaint, directing the opposite party to allot the plot on receiving the necessary amount and to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation. Against the order impugned the opposite party filed this appeal praying to set aside the order.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on bothside, perused the materials placed on record, and the order impugned, and passed the following order in the open court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no notice or advertisement made in any manner for the sale of the plot in Maraimalai Nagar and no such direction was also received from the Government at that time. But the complainant himself on his own had sent a letter alongwith a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- praying for allotment of plot No.16/D/18 NH 2 at Maraimalai Nagar. Therefore, the appellant/opposite party had returned the demand draft alongwith a letter to the complainant stating that the complainant would be informed about the forwarding of application for allotment of plot as and when advertisements were effected in newspapers. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and praying for allowing the appeal. The Respondent/Complainant had filed two Additional documents which are marked as Ex.A4 and A5.
6. On perusal of the records it is established that the opposite party has not given any advertisement regarding the sale of the plot in Maraimalai Nagar. The complainant had furnished only the letter under Ex.A1 requesting for allotment of plot No.16/D/18 NH2 in Maraimalai Nagar by enclosing a demand draft by himself. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is no justifiable right on the side of the Respondent/ Complainant and contractual liability on the part of the opposite party for allotment of plot. The District Forum, without taking into consideration of the above fact, wrongfully fixed the liability on the part of the opposite party, and directed the appellant/ opposite party to allot the plot, and to pay a compensation of Rs.10000/-, which is not legally sustainable. Accordingly the appeal is liable to be allowed.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside of the order of the District Forum in CC.No.14/2007 dt.15.10.2012 and the complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost throughout.
Registry is directed to discharge the mandatory deposit, alongwith accrued interest, in favour of the appellant.
K. BASKARAN S. TAMILVANAN
JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
A4 18.09.2012 Copy of RTI Application
A5 25.10.2012 Reply by OP/ Appellant
K. BASKARAN S. TAMILVANAN
JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
INDEX : YES / NO
