DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member Date of Filing: 13/04/2021
CC/74/2021
C. Manikandan,
“Arunima”,
Mythri Garden, Kazhchaparambu,
Kannadi (PO), Palakkad – 678 701. - Complainant
(By Adv. M/s M.J. Vijayakumar & Anjana A.)
Vs
- Amaravathi Developers,
Reg No.1204/08, 12/707,
Puthur Road, Koppam, Palakkad – 678 001
- Mohandas P.S.
Managing Partner,
Amaravathi Developers,
Reg. No.1204/08, 12/707,
Puthur Road, Koppam, Palakkad – 678 001.
- Sabu P Mathew
Managing Partner,
Amaravathi Developers,
Reg. No. 1204/08, 12/707,
Puthur Road, Koppam, Palakkad – 678 001. - Opposite parties (O.P.s by Adv. Santhosh T.)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Concise pleadings are that the complainant purchased a flat for a total consideration of 12,72,400/- as per sale agreement dated 14/1/2013 entered into with the opposite parties. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.10,80,000/-. Period of completion was 20 months from the date of sale agreement and a sale deed with regard to the property would be executed within one month after completion of the building. But, till 2020, the building was not properly constructed nor possession handed over. The complaint is filed seeking return of Rs.30,86,300/- which is inclusive of home loan interest paid by the complainant alongwith 12% and incidental reliefs.
- Opposite parties filed version stating that construction of the apartment complex was over and apartment had been ready for handing over by 09/11/2017 had been completed very much earlier. The allegation of the complainant that the opposite party had stopped work after receiving Rs.10,80,000/- is false and the O.P. had been only waiting approval from LSGD Dept. Approval was obtained during 2017 itself. The complainant had not visited the site during September 2020. The complainant had failed to effect payment of the balance amount payable. The complaint is barred by limitation.
- Based on the pleadings and counter pleadings, the following issues were framed:
- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
- Whether there is any cause of action for filing this complainant?
- Whether the complainant has paid the entire cost of the project due to him from the O.P.s?
- Whether the O.P.s have delayed in handing over the apartment?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s?
- Reliefs and costs, if any?
4. (i) Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to Ext. A20.
(ii) OP1 filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. B1 series.
Issue No. 1
5. Even though the complainant had not raised this contention as serious issue, we are still considering this issue as it is statutory in nature. Admittedly the construction is to be completed within 20 months from the date of agreement. Agreement was entered on 14/1/2013. Hence, the 20 months period would fall some time during August 2014. The period of limitation would start from August 2014 and would run till August 2016. But the Hon’ble National Commission has held that when the case is with regard to non handing over of a flat, there would be continuing cause of action extending the period of limitation.
Therefore we hold that this complaint is not barred by limitation.
Issue No. 2
6. Complainant filed this complaint alleging that there was inordinate delay on the part of opposite parties in not registering the apartment in favour of the complainant. The first relief is as follows:
“i) Direct the opposite parties to complete the entire construction and hand over the possession to the complainant by registering the sale deed as agreed in the sale agreement”.
The complaint is seen filed on 13/4/2021. It is the unequivocal case of the O.P. that construction of the building was over by 2017 and that it was due to the fault of the complainant that the registration did not fructify. Ext.B1 series is a communication dated 19/4/2018 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. The communication reveals the apartment bearing No. 1B was provided door number from Chavakkad Municipality on 9/11/2017 and that the OP had been ready to register the building in the name of the complainant on or before 8/5/2018. Ext.B1(c) is a postal receipt evidencing that this communication was issued to Manikantan on 19/4/2018 itself. The said communication was received on 20/4/2018. Complainant had no objection whatsoever in marking Ext.B1 series.
7. Exts.B1 series conclusively prove that the opposite parties had been ready and willing to register the apartment in favour of the complainant as early as 19/4/2018. The said series of documents also prove that the complainant had received notice of the intention of the opposite parties to hand over possession of the property and execute sale deed. The complainant had failed to disprove the sanctity of Ext. B1 series of documents.
8. Therefore we hold that there is no cause of action on the part of the complainant to file this complaint.
Issue Nos.3,4 & 5
9. In view of the finding in issue No.2, it is not necessary to resort to a discussion on these 3 issues.
Issue No. 6
10. This is a complaint wherein the complainants has, even after having full notice regarding the fact that the opposite parties had issued Ext.B1 communication intimating completion of the building and their readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed, had filed a complaint, thereby roping in the opposite parties for no fault of theirs.
11. The opposite parties were dragged to a court proceedings for no fault of theirs. Therefore this complaint is nothing short of a malicious and vexatious litigation. The opposite parties are to be compensated for the malicious conduct of the complainant.
12. In facts and circumstances of the case we hold that an amount of Rs.15,000/- be paid by the complainant to each of the opposite parties(thereby totaling Rs. 45,000/-) within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. Holding thus, we dismiss the complaint.
Pronounced in open court on this the 8th day of September, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President Sd/-
Smt. Vidya A.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of agreement of sale dated 14/1/2013
Ext.A2 – Copy of receipt dated 28/12/2012
Ext.A3 – Copy of receipt dated 18/04/2013
Ext.A4 - Copy of receipt dated 21/11/2013
Ext.A5 - Copy of receipt dated 30/07/2014
Ext.A6 - Copy of receipt dated 25/11/2015
Ext.A7 - Copy of payment details dated 11/1/2021
Ext.A8 - Printout dated 22/7/2020
Ext.A9 - Copy of certificate for interest dated 22/7/2020
Ext.A10 - 8 photographs and one CD
Ext.A11(i) - Postal receipts
Ext.A11(ii) – Original lawyers notice dated 26/2/2021
Ext.A12 –Original statement of account covering 1/4/2014 to 31/3/2015
Ext.A13 - Original statement of account covering 1/4/2015 to 31/3/2016
Ext.A14 - Original statement of account covering 1/4/2016 to 31/3/2017
Ext.A15 - Original statement of account covering 1/4/2017 to 31/3/2018
Ext.A16 - Original statement of account covering 1/4/2018 to 31/3/2019
Ext.A17 - Original statement of account covering 1/4/2019 to 31/3/2020
Ext.A18 - Original statement of account covering 1/4/2020 to 31/3/2021
Ext.A19 - Original statement of account covering 1/4/2021 to 31/3/2022
Ext.A20- Original statement of account covering 1/4/2022 to 23/05/2022
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 (series) – Copy of communication dated 19/4/2018 intimating building completion and
receipt of door no. and postal receipt and A/D card
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
