Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/282/2006

Perumal Apartments Resident - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anupam Foundation Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

-

17 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   28.04.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   17.10.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE 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

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.282/2006

TUESDAY THIS  17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

Perumal Apartments Residents Welfare

Association, Rep. by its

Secretary V.Sivakumar,

Flat G-2, No.32, Mangadusamy Street,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 034.                                         .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

 

Anupam Foundations Limited,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Shanthimull Nahar,

No.749, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.                                       .. Opposite party

 

Counsel for Complainant             :   M/s. C.S.K.Sathish          

Counsel for opposite party          :   M/s. Ashok Menon & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to rectify the deficiency in constructionand to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

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

         The complainant submit that  the complainant’s association entered into  Development agreement  on 12.12.2000 with the opposite party.  As per the  development agreement the opposite party obtained building permission on 12.3.2001. Thereafter the complainant association and the opposite party agreed to construct  the ground floor and all the purchasers had agreed for the same.   The complainant also state that  the opposite party has not completed the building and handed over the building as per the terms of joint development agreement.   Hence the complainant association appointed  licensed surveyor  for assessing the pending work and repair work involved in the building.  The surveyor also visited the property and submitted his report.   Accordingly the said surveyor by his report dated 29.3.2005 had quoted a sum of Rs.5,55,250/- would be required to make good the deficiency in construction.   As such the act of  the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the  opposite party is  as follows:

      This opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party denies the averment that as per the construction agreement the opposite party had to paint the entire exterior walls of the flats, paint the grills of the stair case, make provisions for clearing rain water in all the sun shades, and had to attend the overhead tanks with regard to mark the pipelines connecting the individual flats, make good the leakages in the water tank, to fix water meter in the individual pipelines to enable the complainant association to fix water charges in the sense and spirit that the averment is made.    The opposite party further denies that the complainant has availed the service of a licensed surveyor on 29.3.2005 to assess the work to be done and the expenses that were likely to be incurred in attending to them.   This opposite party has not knowledged any inspection by any surveyor or any report filed and would most humbly like to submit that if indeed any surveyor had inspected, prior notice ought to have been given to the opposite party so that such inspection could have been done in the presence of this opposite party.   This opposite party is unaware of any report of any surveyor dated 29.3.2005 and denies that a sum of Rs.5,55,250/- would be required to make good the deficiency in construction.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.   The points for the consideration is:  

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to rectify the construction in alleged repairs as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony with cost as prayed for?

5.      POINTS  1 & 2:

          Both parties  has not filed any written argument and not turned up to advance any oral argument for long time.  Admittedly the complainant association entered into  Development agreement Ex.A1 on 12.12.2000 with the opposite party.  As per the  development agreement the opposite party obtained building permission on 12.3.2001 also admitted.   Thereafter the complainant association and the opposite party agreed to construct  the ground floor and all the purchasers had agreed for the same and both parties aware of the consequences is not denied.   The complainant pleaded in the complaint that the opposite party has not completed the building and handed over the building as per the terms of joint development agreement. Hence the complainant association appointed  licensed surveyor  for assessing the pending work and repair work involved in the building.   The surveyor also visited the property and submitted his report which is marked as Ex.A2.   As per Ex.A9 there is a pending work of Rs.5,55,250/-.   But it is very unfortunate that neither the complainant association nor the licensed surveyor has not given any notice  of such assessment related to pending work to the opposite party.  The licensed surveyor had also not given the guidelines for such assessment.   On a scrutiny of the report the surveyor prepared the report in consonance with the averment of deficiency in service alleged in the complaint without notice and guide lines.    The complainant has not taken any steps to appoint Advocate commissioner to find out the actual deficiency in construction.   The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly the complainant association and the opposite party agreed to construct additional 2^nd and 3^rd floor which leads several consequences related to approval and sharing of area spacing of excess amount etc. alleging deficiency in construction are imaginary.    The opposite party constructed the building in such manner having no such deficiency.  The allegation of pending leakages in water tank fixing of water meter and all other aspects has been duly attended by the opposite party, there is no deficiency of any kind exist.   The report of the licensed  surveyor is one sided.   No notice of any information regarding the visit of the surveyor or assessment by the surveyor given to the opposite parties.    Further the contention of the complainant is that due to the deficiency  in construction; the complainant association are put to great mental agony and is claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation but no evidence.   

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of mental agony is imaginary.  All the defects have been rectified without any default.   The alleged deficiency has not been proved by the complainant in a proper manner.  Engaging a licensed surveyor of their whims and fancy and created a report  shall not yield any purpose.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and the points 1 & 2 are answered accordingly. 

             In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

           Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 17^th day  of  October  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-         -       - Copy of construction agreement.

Ex.A2- 4.7.2002    - Copy of implead application filed with CMDA.

Ex.A3- 1.10.2003  - Copy of Memorandum of Association of the complainant.

Ex.A4- 19.11.2003         - Copy of Certificate of Incorporation of complainant

                               Association.

Ex.A5- 10.6.2004  - Copy of payment made to TNEB.

Ex.A6- 11.6.2004  - Copy of payments made to TNEB.

Ex.A7- 6.9.2004    - Copy of letter to opposite party.

Ex.A8- 1.12.2004  - Copy of letter to opposite party.

Ex.A9- 29.3.2005  - Copy of work estimate and quotation given by Engineer.

 

Opposite party’s side document: -     .. Nil..

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.