Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/388/2013

S.A.Balakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cee Dee Yes Infrastructure Development Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Sunil Sudhakar Shankar

24 Jan 2022

ORDER

                                                        Date of Complaint Filed: 02.12.2013

                                                                                                                    Date of Reservation     :  16.12.2021

                                                                                                                    Date of Order              :  24.01.2022

                                                                     

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

Present:    Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.           : President

                   Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                  : Member

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.388/2013

MONDAY, THE 24^th DAY OF JANUARY 2022

 

S.A.Balakrishnan,

A 44, Thaamrai Shanthiniketan,

City Link Road, Adambakkam,

Chennai 600 088.                                                                                                                  .. Complainant.                                         

..Versus..

 

The Managing Director,

Cee Dee Yes Infrastructure Development Pvt Ltd,

Second Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar,

Chennai 600 020.                                                                                                                      .. Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant    : M/s Sunil Sudhakar Shanker

Counsel for the opposite party : M/s. N. Premkumar

        On perusal of records and  having treated the written arguments of both  and we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A.,B.L.

1.      Complainant has filed this complaint under section 1986 and seek prayer to direct the opposite party to rectify the defects in the construction of the building including repair the leak on the roof of the building and to repair the cracks on the windowsill of the Apartment, from which the Rain water is leaking and to take immediate steps to provide essential amenities as promised including  complete pharmacy shop, provide bus service to Guindy via Tambaram by GST Road and to provide a Multiplex Theatre in the development as promised in the agreement. Further it is prayed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for varying the specifications of the building from the original specification as promised at the time of booking the apartment and to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the delay in delivery.

2.    The complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and written argument.  On the side of the complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked.   The opposite party has submitted his version, proof affidavit and written arguments and on the side of the opposite party documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B20 are marked. Advocate Commissioner reports Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 are marked.  

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

        The complainant submits that he was lured by an advertisement placed by the opposite party  in various media in early 2008 as regards a large Residential Apartment development named as Chennai Pattinam at Nellikuppam Village, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Kanchipuram District. The opposite party made several promises as an integral part of the development including Medical Pharmacy, Exclusive Bus Service to Guindy for the residence of the development, via Tambaram on GST Road and Multiplex Theatre. Relying on the advertisements complainant entered in to an agreement with the opposite party on 30.06.2008 for the purchase of a two Bed Room Apartment Bearing L Block, No.57 having a built- up area of 1150 sq.ft., for a total consideration Rs.21,27,500/- . Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.20,26,125/- and the remaining consideration of Rs.1,06,375/- has to be paid at the time handing over possession of the said apartment on or before 30.04.2010. A Sale Deed dated 22.06.2008 was registered by the opposite party to an extent of 550 sq.ft of undivided share to the complainant.

4.     During the month of February 2009 complainant made a visit to the construction site and found the materials being used for the construction were contrary to the specifications as mentioned in the agreement. Further there was a delay in completion of the said flat. After sending a Notice to the opposite party, they offered another apartment in the said development and changed the allotment from the apartment in Block 57/1-L to Block No.54/4-G vide letter dated  02.02.2012. Having no other option but to accept the revised allotment. The flat was delivered only on 27.02.2012. After taking delivery he was devastated when he noticed that the apartment had so many defects including a leakage in the room and the building shows signs of cracks. Hence this complaint is filed.

5.         Written Version in Brief:-

        The complaint filed by the complainant is as against the Managing Director in an individual capacity is wholly unsustainable and also non-est in law. There is no individual privity of contract between the complainant and the Managing Director. It is admitted that the complainant had booked a flat and paid a sum of Rs.1,06,375/- towards booking advance and further sum of Rs.19,14,750/- . In the year 2009 due to the economic crisis, the construction business came to a standstill. Hence the opposite party company decided to split the project into two phases and proceeded with the first phase which were duly intimated to the complainant. As the complainant showed urgency in getting the delivery of possession, the opposite party through their letter dated 02.02.2012 liberally provided them with an option to switch to any other flat which was duly completed and ready for occupation. The complainant has also expressed his willingness to take the alternate apartment offered by the opposite party. Thereafter a fresh amended sale construction agreement was entered on 27.02.2012 and the apartment in Block No.54/4-G was handed over to him on the same day.

6.       It is completely false to state that there was leakage in the roof and cracks in the wall. The opposite party company had started exclusive bus service to Adyar, GST Road and Guduvancherry from the Apartments. Further more run vans to reach Siruseri, Mahindra City and Sipcot also provided. It also provides spaces for construting three multiplex screens inside the premises. Meanwhile, as an entertainment to the resisdence the films are being screened with in the complex during every month and depending upon the patronage duration of screening films will be done at fort night intervals. It is relevant to state after handing over the apartment, the opposite party established 24 X 7 clinic within the complex with the provision of Doctors. The complainant has received the total amount of Rs.2,45,560/- by way of compensation from the opposite party for the delay in handing over the apartment. Hence it is requested to dismiss the complaint.

7.         The Points for consideration are:-

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2.Whether the complaint is entitled to get the relief as claimed in the complaint ?

3.To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

8.         Point No.1

        On application by the complainant in CMP.No.221 of 2014 a Commissioner was appointed to inspect the property with due assistance of qualified Civil Engineer and note down the physical features of the property. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and submit a report which is marked as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. On perusal of the report it is found Rain water leakage marks have seen near Cupboard on the external side wall of the Bedroom. There is a horizontal wall cracks are found in the wall of the Kitchen. This is the joint cracks in between below beam and wall. As such, there is a horizontal wall crack found in the Master Bed Room and another crack have seen near AC Fitting. In the Bath Room Air Crack have developed in the wall. Rain Water seepage marks have seen in the wall. In Rear Varanda portion a wall crack have seen below beam joint. Minor touch up work to be done at the Joint of hand Rail and column.

9.     For the above Commissioner Report the opposite party have submits their objection. In the objection it is stated that the rain water leakage near cupboard on the external side wall is due to the  lack of proper and periodical maintenance of the house by the complainant and the horizontal wall crack in the kitchen and Master Bed Room may occurred purely on account of errection of nail or any other installation in a roughly manner. Further the joint air cracks in between below beam and wall is only due to in variation in plastering between wall and the beam. The air crack have been developed  in the bath room wall is only variation in the plastering of paints due to the existence of whether and climate change in the normal course of time. Further water seepage marks found in the bath room may be occurred on account of the lack of maintenance by the complainant. The alleged defects which are not at all defects and it can be rectified by plastering with putty with painting materials. Due to lack of proper maintenance of the apartment as well as the improper installation of cupboard, wardrobe, wall cupboard, AC, Electrical Appliances etc., may also lead to air cracks in the wall and the opposite party is no way liable or responsible for the said wilful act of the complainant.

10.    It is an admitted fact that the building was handed over on 27.02.2012 to the complainant. Commissioner inspected the property on 05.08.2017. Therefore after 5 years late the building was inspected by the Commissioner along with a qualified Civil Engineer. However within five years the building had horizontal wall cracks in between below the beam and the wall which would not occured under improper maintenance of the complainant.

11.    As per the Commissioner’s Report it would reveal that there is bus service in the apartment and also 24 X 7 cleaning provided in the apartment. Further delay period compensation also given by the opposite party to the complainant the same was not denied by the complainant. There is no evidence to show that the opposite party has constructed varying the specification of the building from the original specifications. The only variation admitted by the opposite party is since the brick was not available concrete hollow block and Fly Ash Brick was used. The same was intimated to the complainant by the opposite party in their letter dated 18.02.2011. However there is no provision provides by the opposite party for multiplex theatre. As stated above the horizontal wall cracks in the construction of the building is a defect. Hence we found that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service on his part. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered.

12.       Point Nos. 2 & 3:-

        We have discussed and decided that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and thereby the opposite party shall rectify the defects which are elucidated in the Commissioner’s Report. Further the opposite party shall provide a Multiplex Theatre in the Chennai Pattinam Project at Nellikuppam Village. Further the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Accordingly point Nos.2 &3 are answered.

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to repair the defects which was enumerated in the Commissioner’s Report and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with cost of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite party shall comply the above order within three months from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to file execution application for complying the above order and to recover the above amounts along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this  the  24^th day of January  2022.

 

T.VINODH KUMAR                                                 R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                     

      MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the complainant:

Ex.A1	03.06.2008	Allotment letter with receipts
Ex.A2	03.06.2008 & 02.02.2012	Agreement
Ex.A3	22.06.2008	Sale Deed
Ex.A4	10.02.2011	Letter
Ex.A5	18.02.2011	Reply Letter
Ex.A6	19.09.2011	Notice
Ex.A7	24.02.2012	Letter for Change of flat
Ex.A8	27.02.2012	Delivery of Flat by letter
Ex.A9	08.01.2013	Letter
Ex.A10	11.01.2013	Reply
Ex.A11	-	Brochure

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite party:

Ex.B1	03.06.2008	Allotment Letter issued to the Complainant
Ex.B2	03.06.2008	Receipt for Rs.1,06,375 for ChequeNo.075586
Ex.B3	03.06.2008	Receipt for Rs.19,14,750/- for ChequeNo.075587
Ex.B4	03.06.2008	Sale cum construction Agreement for the purchase of the Apartment No.L In Block No.57
Ex.B5	01.09.2010	Letter issued by the complainant to the Opposite party
Ex.B6	26.09.2011	Letter issued by the Opposite party to the complainant’s advocate along with cheque for Rs.30,902/- and statement of accounts.
Ex.B7	13.01.2012	Letter issued by the Opposite party to the complainant’s advocate along with cheque for Rs.38,773/-.
Ex.B8	24.01.2012	Letter issued by the Opposite party to the complainant’s advocate to the letter dated 21.01.2012 by the complainant’s advocate.
Ex.B9	02.02.2012	Letter issued by the Opposite party to the complainant to choose another apartment in any of the completed block which is ready to occupation.
Ex.B10	27.02.2012	Letter issued by the Opposite party to the complainant for handing over of the original Sale Deed for UDS.
Ex.B11	27.02.2012	Sale cum Construction Agreement for the purchase of the apartment 4G in Block No.54
Ex.B12	11.12.2017	Objection filed by the opposite party to the Advocate Commissioner report
Ex.B13	-	Statement of accounts of the maintenance charges paid by the complainant and the details of Due of Maintenance amount in the sum of Rs.2036/- per month from September,2015 to October 2018 in the sum of Rs.77,368/-
Ex.B14	31.12.2017	Bill issued by the sree victor enterprises for screening of cinema in the Residential Complex
Ex.B15	07.07.2018	Bill issued by the Sree Victor enterprises for screening of cinema in the residential complex.
Ex.B16	-	Photographs showing the seating arrangements for screening of cinema in the residential complex.
Ex.B17	-	Handbook issued by the Travel Desk with the details of the Bus Route from the residential complex to various destination and the car rental details
Ex.B18	17.04.2017	Complainant’s “80th marriage Anniversary ceremony” (sadhapisegam) invitation and receipt issued for the use of Auditorium for booking of auditorium for the complainant’s (sadhapisegam)
Ex.B19	-	Photographs showing the 24 X 7 clinic attached with “Apollo Pharmacy”, Bus services from the Residential complex, and the other amenities in the Residential complex
Ex.B20	-	Brochure showing the amenities in the residential complex.

List of documents filed by the Advocate Commissioner:-

Ex.C1	05.08.2017	Photographs taken at the time of the inspection & facilities provided in promoter community.
Ex.C2	10.08.2017	Engineer’s Report
Ex.C3	20.11.2017	Advocate Commissioner’s Report

 

T.VINODH KUMAR                                                  R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                     

      MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT