Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/168/2012

S.Madhavan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Andrew Vedayanagam - Opp.Party(s)

G.Karthikeyan

04 Jun 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 18.04.2012

                                                                          Date of Order : 04.06.2018

 

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.168 /2012

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 04^TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

Mr. S. Madhavan,

S/o. Mr. V. Santhanaraman,

No.B-F-1, Guru Prasad Apartments,

42^nd Street,

Nanganallur,

Chennai – 600 061.                                               .. Complainant.                                                ..Versus..

 

1. Mr. T. Karthik,

S/o. Mr. Thyagarajan,

No.1, First Floor,

P.R. Layout, 6^th Cross Street,

Murugesapalayam,

Bangalore – 560 017.

 

2.  Mr. Andrew Vethanayagam,

S/o. Dr. D. Baskaran Vethanayagam,

West Wood Engineers,

No.28, 3^rd Cross Street,

Kasturibai Nagar,

Adayar,

Chennai – 600 020.                                        ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant            :  M/s. G. Karthikeyan & others              

Counsel for 1^st opposite party   :  Exparte

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party  :  M/s. P. Paul Selvam & 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 praying to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards cost of car parking and other miscellaneous expenses and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for sufferings, mental agony and metal depression and to pay the cost of the complaint.

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

The complainant submits that he purchased a flat No. FA, West Wood Supreme Flats, Sairam Avenu, 2^nd Street, Balliah Garden, Madipakkam, Chennai - 91 with the car parking.  The complainant submits that, he has paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards car parking and after purchase his car parking was locked by the other apartment owners and created several problems.  Further the complainant submits that, there are four flats with four car parking available in the building.   Further the complainant submits that, the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties very trickily falsified the documents and collected a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards car parking which was only a common place and not to be owned by any  one specifically.    Since the neighbours including the opposite parties had not properly provided the car parking even after the receipt of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the cost of car parking, the complainant issued legal notice dated:04.09.2011.   The 1^st opposite party retuned the postal cover and given a evasive e-mail reply to the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party received the said legal notice but failed to reply to the complainant which caused mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     The Court notice sent to the 1^st opposite party was returned as “No such person in the Address”.  Eventhough paper publication has been given and effected, the 1^st opposite party has not been appeared before this Forum and was set Exparte.

  3.   The brief averments in the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 2^nd opposite party states that, the complainant have no connection with the 2^nd opposite party since the 1^st opposite party alone made an agreement with the 2^nd opposite party and purchased the apartment with the car parking.   There is no privity of contract between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party.   There are four apartments in the building  each apartment is having its own car parking.  Further the 2^nd opposite party states that the complainant has not impleaded his neighbours who are alleged to be locked the car parking belongs to the complainant.  The non joinder of neighbours is fatal to the case.   Further the 2^nd opposite party states that the complainant filed this complaint with an intension to encash the car parking area and using such area as a common place.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.

4.     In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party filed and documents Ex.B1 is filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5.     The points of consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the cost of car parking as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

6.     On point:

 The 1^st opposite party remained Exparte.  Both the complainant and 2^nd opposite party filed their respective written arguments.   Heard the 2^nd opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The 2^nd opposite party is the builder and the 1^st opposite party is the purchaser under him who sold the property to the complainant as per Ex.A3 Sale Deed.  The complainant purchased a flat No. FA, Balliah Garden, Madipakkam, Chennai - 91 with the car parking is very clear from the said Sale Deed. The contention of the complainant is that, he had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards car parking and after purchase his car parking was locked by the other apartment owners and created several problems.  But the complainant has not impleaded all the owners in the apartment except the builder who is not connected with the complainant and the 1^st opposite party who sold the apartment to the complainant.  Further the contention of the complainant is that, there are four flats with four car parking available in the building.  As per Ex.3 Sale Deed, the complainant purchased the apartment with car parking in clear terms along with the sketch.   

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that, the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties very trickily falsified the documents and collected a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards car parking which was only a common place and not to be owned by any  one specifically.  But there is no evidence on record to prove such contention.   Since the neighbours including the opposite parties had not properly provided the car parking even after the receipt of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the cost of car parking.   Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this case claiming the cost paid towards car parking with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.  But on a careful perusal of records, it is apparently clear that, the complainant purchased the car parking with specific sketch in detail.  The 2^nd opposite party also described the car parking with measurement.   From the contention of the complainant, it is also clear that the complainant is attempting to encash the car parking as a common area. 

8.     The contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the complainant have no connection with the 2^nd opposite party since admittedly, the 1^st opposite party alone made an agreement with the 2^nd opposite party and purchased the apartment with the car parking.   There is no privity of contract between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party.   There are four apartments in the building  each apartment is having its own car parking.  It is also evidenced  from the Sale Deed Ex.A3.   Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the complainant has not impleaded his neighbours who are alleged to be locked the car parking belongs to the complainant.  The non joinder of neighbours is fatal to the case.   Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the complainant filed the complaint with an intension to encash the car parking area and using such area as a common place;  without impleading the neighbours, who are having equal rights and liabilities. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice proved in this case as alleged.    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 04^th day of June 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	29.08.2005	Copy of Builders Agreement
Ex.A2	20.03.2006	Copy of letter of undertaking given by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A3	14.07.2011	Copy of Sale Deed vide document No.3824/2011
Ex.A4	04.09.2011	Copy of Statutory Legal notice caused to the opposite parties
Ex.A5	15.09.2011	Copy of acknowledgment card of the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A6	02.10.2011	Copy of returned postal cover of the 1st opposite party
Ex.A7	23.09.2011	Copy of e-mail reply of the 1st opposite party

 

2^ND OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1

Photograph of 4 car parking allotted to apartment owner

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT