Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

496/2008

C.M.Sreekumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.Sundar, Managing Director & another - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

09 May 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 26.11.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 09.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.496 /2008

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 09^TH DAY OF MAY 2018

                                 

C.M. Sreekumari,

W/o. G. Kesava Pillai,

Old No.29, New No.69/1,

Subhiksha Flat,

Thiruvenkatapuram 1^st Street,     

Choolaimedu Post,

Chennai – 600 094                                                     .. Complainant.                                                         

 

                                                            ..Versus..

1. Mr. A. Sundar,

Managing Director,

SREESUBHIKSHA HOUSING AND ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,

No.10, (Old No.25), 1^st Main Road,

Vengheeswarar Nagar,

Vadapalani,

Chennai – 600 026.

 

2.  Mrs. Geetha Sundar,

No.10, (Old No.25), 1^st Main Road,

Vengheeswarar Nagar,

Vadapalani,

Chennai – 600 026.                                              ..  Opposite parties.

 

(Died – Steps not taken)

          

For complainant                      :  Party in person

Counsel for Opposite parties  :  M/s. R. Saravanakumar & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking to pay a sum of Rs.10,22,866/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony and cost of the complaint.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that she booked the ground floor apartment measuring 740.44 sq ft. in the building proposed to be constructed by See Subhiksha Housing and Enterprises (P) Ltd. and the Agreement for the construction of apartment was made on 23.08.2006.Further the complainant submits that on 25.08.2006 the opposite parties executed a Sale Deed for the undivided share of the landed property for 395.185 sq. ft. The cost of construction and value of undivided share of the undivided property and other amounts were described in the complaint.The complainant further submits that the opposite parties miserably failed to follow the provisions of the Agreement, provisions of “The Tamil NaduApartment Ownership Act, 1994”. The 1 & 2^nd opposite parties grabbed the land of the intending bonafide purchasers by mischief and criminal trespass and constructed apartments without approved building plan.As per the Sale Deed No.3370/2006 dated:25.08.2006, the opposite parties sold only 395.185 sq ft as against 583.23 sq. ft.Thereby, there is a difference of 94.25 sq ft.

2.  
3.  

  4.   The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.The opposite parties state that the opposite parties is a private limited company engaged in promoting / constructing flats for residential purposes since 1986.  The opposite parties promoted residential flat in the property measuring 2249 sq ft at old door no.24 new door No.29 Thiruvengadam Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai in which, the complainant purchased a flat No. G1 together with cark park in the ground floor.    The complainant visited the building site verified the sanctioned plan issued by CMDA dated:08.23.2006.    When building structure was raised upto 1^st floor and the building work was in progress,  the complainant come forward to purchase the flat No.G1.    The opposite parties also handed over all the title deeds.  The rate of construction for the complainant was  fixed at the rate of Rs.2,150/- per 895 sq ft. The complainant agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards car parking area of 50 sq ft.    The complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards EB connection, water and sewage connection etc.  The registration expenditure is Rs.3000/-.  The total cost for flat G1 was fixed as Rs.21,30,000/-.    

5.  

6.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A42 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

7.     The 2^nd opposite party reported died on 25.03.2015.  the complainant has not taken any steps to implead the legal heirs of the 2^nd opposite party for a long time.  Hence the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed as abated.

8.     The point for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,22,866/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony as prayed for with cost?

9.     On point:

Both parties have not turned up to advance any oral arguments.Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents, written arguments of complainant etc.The complainant pleaded and contended that she booked the ground floor apartment measuring 740.44 sq ft. in the building proposed to be constructed by See Subhiksha Housing and Enterprises (P) Ltd. as per Ex.A1 dated: 23.08.2006.Buton a careful perused of Ex.A1 schedule B & C it is very clear as follows:

“THAT THE VENDORS at all times will indemnify and save harmless and keep the PURCHASER well and sufficiently indemnified against all losses, damages, costs and expenses which the PURCHASER may suffer, sustain or put in by reason of any encumbrance or defect in title to the property conveyed hereunder”.   

10.  

“WHEREAS all that piece and parcel of the vacant land situated at Old Door No.24, New Door No.29, Tiruvenkatapuram street, Choolaimedu, Chennai to the extent of 2249 sq.ft” and thereby, it is very clear that the complainant purchased only 395.185 sq ft. alone for a sum of Rs.5,13,740/- and not 583.23 sq.ft.   

11.  
12.  
13.  
14.  

“AND WHEREAS the plans and specifications of the proposed storied buildings after reference to the local authorities have been duly approved and sanctioned by the Corporation of the city of Chennai / CMDA”.   But the Ex.A5, calculation sheet prepared by the opposite parties shows covered car parking Rs.1,00,000/- without any specification.  If due specification, of car parking area mentioned in the approved plan, it should have been mentioned in the calculation sheet also.  On calculating the value of car parking area, only a sum of Rs.65,000/- alone  comes.    But the opposite parties have collected Rs.1,00,000/- towards car parking area.   The opposite parties shall refund the excess amount collected.  But on a careful perusal of records and as per agreement the complainant is entitled 50 sq ft towards car parking and the complainant has admitted the cost of construction is Rs.2,150/- per sq ft.  Hence Rs.1,00,000/- towards car parking for 50 sq. ft. is less.   Further the contention of the complainant is that, the opposite parties have charged Rs.10,320/- towards special flooring including skirting over an area of 860 sq ft.   But the actual measurement for special flooring excluding the area of two bathrooms comes only 660 sq fts.   The complainant has not taken any steps for measuring the rooms and find out the exact area.   The Commissioner also has not measured the rooms and submitted his reports.  

15.  

16.   The contention of the opposite parties is that the opposite parties is a private limited company engaged in promoting / constructing flats for residential purposes since 1986.  The opposite parties promoted residential flat in the property measuring 2249 sq ft at old door no.24 new door No.29 Thiruvengadam Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai in which, the complainant purchased a flat No. G1 together with cark park in the ground floor.    The complainant visited the building site verified the sanctioned plan issued by CMDA dated:08.23.2006.    When building structure was raised upto 1^st floor and the building work was in progress,  the complainant came forward to purchase the flat No.G1.    The opposite parties also handed over all the title deeds.  The rate of construction for the complainant was  fixed at the rate of Rs.2,150/- per 895 sq ft. The complainant agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards car parking area of 50 sq ft.    The complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards EB connection, water and sewage connection etc.  The registration expenditure is Rs.3000/-.  The total cost for flat G1 was fixed as Rs.21,30,000/-.    

17.   Further the opposite parties contention is that, the land and area as per field measurement, and parent document is 2249 sq ft.  But planning permission is accorded based on the revenue records wherein the extent is 2154 sq ft.    The exact proportional share of 2249 sq ft of total land works out 395.185 sq ft undivided share of land goes to the complainant.  Claiming 583.23 sq ft towards undivided share is imaginary and against the availability of the extent and the area of construction.  The contention raised by the complainant is that this opposite parties constructed apartments violating the approved plan never arise because the complainant purchased flat No.G1 which is, approved by CMDA.    Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the plinth area as per the Construction Agreement is 895 sq. ft.  The complainant pleaded the actual area without giving any account for the common area and plinth area, claiming huge amount by way of compensation against the provisions of law cannot be acceptable.  Equally the contention raised by the complainant that this opposite parties splitted the car parking area sanctioned in CMDA plan and allotted 50 sq ft to the complainant for car parking and alleged the deficiency cannot be acceptable since as per the agreement and sale deed the complainant had purchased only 50 sq ft towards car parking area for a  sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which is less for Rs.7,500/- since admittedly the construction cost per sq ft is Rs.2,150/-.   

18.   Further the contention related to the flooring, bathroom doors etc are rectified on 08.10.2007 as per the meeting held on 7.10.2010.  Equally, there is no unfair trade practice exercised by the opposite party in receiving a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards electricity, water and sewerage charges, registration charges and development charges which are inevitable, as a service motive this opposite parties have done the job.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 09^th day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	23.08.2006	Copy of agreement
Ex.A2	25.08.2006	Copy of sale deed
Ex.A3		Copy of CMDA approved building plan
Ex.A4	10.11.2008	Extract of Newspaper, THE HINDU
Ex.A5	01.11.2008	Calculation sheet prepared by the 1st opposite party and extract of Newspaper advertisement the TIMES OF INDIA daily
Ex.A6	05.04.2007	Copy of letter from Mr. A. Sundar to Mrs. C.M. Sreekumari
Ex.A7	31.01.2008	Copy of letter to Mr. A. Sundar by G. Kesava Pillai
Ex.A8	17.10.2008 & 30.10.2008	Copy of letters to the City Police Commissioner by G. Kesava Pillai
Ex.A9	01.02.2008	Copy of Newspaper report THE HINDU National Daily
Ex.A10	22.10.2007	Copy of receipted challan
Ex.A11		Copies of Discharge certificates from Sree Ramachandra M.C. Hospital, MIOT Hospital & copy of 3 receipt
Ex.A12		Copy of description of Sree Subhiksha Housing and Enterprises P.Ltd as given in their website address www. Sree subhiksha.com
Ex.A13		Copy of statement by State Bank of India, Gill Nagar Branch, showing clearance of cheques issued to Sree Subhiksha Housing and Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 5 nos.
Ex.A14		Copy of judgement in State Bank of Travancore Vs 14 others by the Honourable High Court of Madras in WP No.39468/2002
Ex.A15	31.10.2009 & 09.10.2009	Copy of advertisement by Akshaya Homes, Times Property and Copy of advertisement by Akshaya Homes, THE HINDU, National Daily
Ex.A16	25.08.2006	Copy of sale deed No.3369/2006 between Mrs. Geetha Sundar and Mr. A. Sundar
Ex.A17		Copy of Power of Attorney given to Mrs. Geetha Sundar by Mr. P. Raja and Mr. P. Sundar
Ex.A18		Copy of receipts issued by sub registry office, Kodambakkam for copy of Power of Attorney
Ex.A19		Copy of manipulated Drawing and copy of approved ground floor apartment showing area excluded from the apartment G1
Ex.A20	28.08.2009	Copy of letters No.Z.O.V.C A4/4814/2009 from Public Information Officer Zone V Corporation of Chennai, Kilpauk, Chennai
Ex.A21	16.08.2008	Copy of advertisement of CEE DEE YES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD, Hindu Property
Ex.A22		Judgement of the Hon. Supreme court of India in Shanti Sports Club and another versus Union of India and others
Ex.A23	17.08.2009	Copy of extract of newspaper report, The Hindu Monday (Regarding violation of building norms)
Ex.A24		Photograph showing length of main gate shifted from original fixing
Ex.A25		Copy of Quotation showing expenditure required for refixing main gate in its original position after cleaning and painting
Ex.A26		Copy of Letter showing date of connection of metro water and sewer
Ex.A27		Copy of extract of sale deed No.3176/06, 3369/06 and 1044/07
Ex.A28		Copy of extract of judgement P.V. Raghupathy Vs C.B. Suresh, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai
Ex.A29	21.02.2006	Copy of office order F7-3/05/KVS (ESSTT-1) 4461/21.02.2006
Ex.A30	13.10.2009	Copy of bonafide certificate F2-25, cert/K.V.Gill/2009-10/13.10.2009
Ex.A31		Copy of Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 1994
Ex.A32		Copy of extract from the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Ex.A33		Copy of verdict of the Hon. Supreme Court of India in Criminal appeal No.227/2007
Ex.A34		Copy of Verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal No.2544/2010
Ex.A35	08.01.2011	A copy of Times of India Presentation
Ex.A36	18.09.2010	A copy of Times of India presentation, Chennai
Ex.A37	23.10.2010	A copy of Times of India presentation, Chennai
Ex.A38		Copy of agreement for construction of Apartment in the storeyed building at No.29 between Sri. A. Sundar, M.D. Sree Subiksha Housing and Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. And Sri. K.K.S. Rajendran No.69/3
Ex.A39		Copy of extract from Transfer of Properties Act, 1882
Ex.A40	25.10.2006	Copy of letter from the M.D. Sree Subhiksha Housing and Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Addressed to the State Bank of India, Gill Nagar Branch, Chennai
Ex.A41	28.08.1996	Copy of judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd and another Versus N.K. Modi
Ex.A42		Copy of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K. Gupta

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT