BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 28th day of February 2014
Filed on : 31/05/2012
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC. 327/2012
Between
V. Shiva Prasad, : Complainant
Sreyas, Near Radio Station Junction, (By Adv. Jacob Mathew Manalil,
Engineering College P.O., G-295, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin-36)
Pangappara Village,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 581.
Vs
1. Apple A Day Properties Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
Apple Tower, Palarivattom-Edappally (By Adv. Sanish C.R., No. 3, Anchorage
Bye-Pass Road, Edappally P.O., Palliyil Lane, Foreshore road, Ernakulam
Kochi-682 024. Cochin-682 016)
2. K.A. Saju,
Poovathumoottil Kadavil,
Edappally P.O., Kochi-682 024.
3. Rajeev Kumar Cheruvara,
D. No. 1/77, Chandra Nivas,
Kudiyirickkaqpallil house,
Edappaly, Ernakulam-682 024.
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The 1st opposite party is a company and the opposite parties 2 and 3 are its directors. On 10-06-2008 the complainant and the opposite parties entered into
agreements for construction of an apartment and sale of undivided share in the land. The total cost of the apartment including consideration for undivided land, covered car parking was Rs. 14,99,000/-. The complainant arranged a bank loan of
Rs. 11,48,757/- and paid a total sum of Rs. 13,98,526/- to the opposite parties. But the 1st opposite party has been delaying the construction of the apartment indefinitely though they have agreed to complete the construction on or before July 2010. The complainant received compensatory rent of Rs. 9,000/- per month for 10 months from February 2009 to February 2010. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 4,08,928.32 towards compensation and to pay monthly Rs. 17,038.68 and also to direct the opposite parties to complete the construction of the apartament and hand over the same with a period of one year. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:
The opposite parties are ready to pay Rs. 9,000/- per month for the project delay. At the instance of few customers few criminal cases were registered and the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were in judicial custody from 18-05-2011 to 18-10-2011. Now, Kerala State Legal Services Authority had intervened in the dispute and the opposite parties have resumed the projects which were stopped. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount other than Rs. 9,000/- as per the agreement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A14 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 4,08,928.32 towards
compensation and Rs. 17,038.68 per month?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get possession of the apartment within a
period of one year?
5.Point No. i. Admittedly on 10-06-2008 the complainant entitled into Ext. A1 agreement for sale of undivided share in land and Ext. A2 agreement for construction of apartment with the opposite parties. The total consideration as per Ext. A1 and A2 is Rs. 14,99,000/-. Admittedly the complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 13,98,526/- to the opposite parties. As per Ext. A2 agreement the opposite parties agreed to complete the construction of the apartment within 18 months from the date of agreement. Admittedly they could not complete the same for their own reasons. During evidence the complainant deposed that he had received Rs. 9,000/- per month till February 2010 towards rent as agreed between the complainant and the opposite parties. In the complaint the complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,08,928.32 and Rs. 17,038.68 per month thereafter. It is to be noted that such an amount does not find a place either in Ext. A1 or in Ext. A2. The opposite parties in their version categorically stated that they are ready and willing to pay Rs. 9,000/- per month for the delay in completing the construction of the apartment. The complainant is entitled to get that amount.
6. Point No. ii. Neither party did take any steps to ascertain the present stage of construction of the apartment. In short nothing is on record to show the present condition of the apartment. In that case we are not in a position to direct the opposite parties to complete the construction of the apartment within a year.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 9,000/- per month to the complainant from February 2010 till the actual date of delivery of possession of the apartment to the complainant.
The above order shall be complied in tune with the above direction.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of February 2014
Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits
:
Exbt. A1 :Copy of agreement for sale of undivided share in land
A2 :Copy of agreement for construction of apartment
A3 :;Copy of letter dt. 08-01-2009
A4 :Copy of letter dt. 30-05-2009
A5 :Copy of e-mail dt. 10-05-2010
A6 : “ “ dt. 15-05-2010
A7 : “ “12/08/2010
A8 :Copy of letter dt. 16-04-2012
A9 : “ “ dt. 20-04-2012
A10 : “ “ dt. 07-06-2011
A11 :Copy of statement dt. 11-11-2010
A12 :Copy of letter dt. 10-01-2012
A13 :Copy of letter dt. 01-02-2012
A14 :Copy of project overview
Opposite party’s Exhibits: :Nil
Depositions:
PW1 :V. Sivaprasad
