Dr.Anupama Ghattu &2ors filed a consumer case on 18 Jul 2023 against E.Janani in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is CC/21/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 12 Sep 2023.
Date of filing : 07.03.2022 IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT
Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL : MEMBER
C.C. No.21 of 2022
Dated the 18th day of July 2023
1. Dr. Anupama Ghattu,
W/o. Dr. N. Balaguruprasad,
301, Willows,
Raintree Park Dwaraka Krishna Phase 2,
NH 16, Namburu,
Guntur District,
Andra Pradesh – 522 508.
2. Dr. N. Balaguruprasad,
S/o. Mr. S. Narayanan,
301, Willows,
Raintree Park Dwaraka Krishna Phase 2,
NH 16, Namburu,
Guntur District,
Andra Pradesh – 522 508.
3. S. Narayanan,
S/o. Late S. Swaminthan,
S2, Greenwich Lushes,
No.97, Kutcheri Road,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004. .. Complainants.
- Vs –
E. Janani,
W/o. Mr. S. Siva Anand,
Proprietrix,
M/s. Greenwich Constructions,
Old No.7, New No.23, North Leith Castle Road,
Santhome,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 028. .. Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Complainants : M/s. K. Ganesan
Opposite party : Exparte
This complaint came before us for final hearing on 21.06.2023 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the complainants and on perusing the entire material records, this Commission made the following :-
O R D E R
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 47 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for the following directions to the opposite party :
2. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party is a builder carrying out construction activities under the name and style of “Greenwich Constructions”. During the year 2018, the opposite party represented to the complainant about their construction projects and the complainant has agreed to purchase a plot bearing Door No.97, (Old No.58), Kutchery Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 comprised in C.C. No.3794,O.S. Nos.1868 and 1867 part, Old R.S. No.3325 as per Patta R.S. No.3325/5, Block No.65 of an extent of 2 grounds (as per Patta 1 ground 2325 sq. ft.) together with right in the passage in R.S. Nos. 3325/20 and 3325/21, leading to Kutchery Road. The undivided share of land to an extent of 721.25 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.96,64,750/- was conveyed by the opposite party through a registered Sale Deed dt. 28.02.2018 which is duly registered as document No.668/2018 in the SRO, Mylapore. Similarly, a Construction Agreement for constructing the flat No.S2 in the second floor with an area of 1267 sq. ft. (inclusive of proportionate common area) along with TNEB Service No.126-002-1531 & two covered car parking for a consideration of Rs.75,21,694/- was entered into between the complainants and opposite party on 28.02.2018 and the said document was duly registered vide No.667/2018 in the SRO, Mylapore. The complainants have paid the consideration by obtaining housing loan of Rs.1.35 crores from the State Bank of India.
3. The opposite party further represented that the construction project consisted of lift, power backup and two covered car parks under clause 8. They have also got approval for the building from the Corporation of Chennai. As per the Construction Agreement dt.28.02.2018, the opposite party has to provide two covered car parks to the complainants. Subsequently, the opposite party issued a handing over of possession Certificate dt.01.03.2018 in respect of Flat No.S2, Second Floor. The opposite party assured the complainants that two car parks shall be allotted in the stilt floor and suitable marking shall be made in due course. Thereafter, when the complainants tried to park their cars, they found that no car parking slot was earmarked for parking their cars. Hence, the complainants approached the opposite party to provide the necessary car parking facility and also earmark specific car parking slot for the complainants. But the opposite party made certain marking and tried to evade providing two proper covered car parks as agreed by them. The complainant had invested more than 2 crores towards purchase of the flat only based on the representation made by the opposite party. But the opposite party miserably failed to provide the reserved covered car park as agreed in the Construction Agreement. Thereafter, the complainants issued legal notice dt.02.09.2021 to the opposite party. The said notice was received by the opposite party on 03.09.2021 but they did not send any reply. Hence, the complainant faced a lot of difficulties in parking the cars in the car park as shown in the schematic diagram which is unusable in the area which does not have clear access. The opposite party through a watsapp message on 16.08.2021 promised to rectify the defect but failed to provide the necessary covered car parks as agreed by them. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed by the complainants seeking the reliefs stated supra.
4. Though notice was served on the opposite party he has not chosen to appear before this Commission. Hence, the opposite party was set expare.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainants, along with proof affidavit, had filed 10 documents and the same have been marked as Ex.A1 to A10.
6. Heard the submission of the counsel for the complainants and perused the entire material available on record.
7. When the matter was taken up for consideration the Counsel for complainants submitted that though the opposite party assured to provide two covered car parks they have miserably failed to provide the same. Hence, now the complainant is facing a lot of difficulties in parking the car. Therefore, a direction to be given to the complainants to provide two covered car parking area. But on a perusal of the documents we find that in order to prove his case, the complainant has filed a Report obtained from the Consulting Civil & Structural Engineer who inspected the site in the presence of the Building Engineer. The said report was marked as Ex.A9. In the said Report the Consulting Civil & Structural Engineer has stated that “As per the Agreement, the Builder agreed to provide 2 Nos. of car parking for each flat owner and the same is not possible as per site condition”. The said Engineer Report marked as Ex.A9 by the complainant would show that there is no space to provide car parking area. Therefore the direction sought by the complainant cannot be granted. The only remedy available in this regard is to file a Civil suit for the damages as against the opposite party since, the opposite party / builder has not provided the car parking area as agreed by them in the Construction Agreement. Therefore, this Commission has no other option except to dismiss the complaint. However, the complainant is at liberty to file a civil suit for appropriate remedy.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R.SUBBIAH, J.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT
Sl.No. Date Description of Documents
Ex.A1 28.02.2018 Copy of Sale Deed
Ex.A2 28.02.2018 Copy of the Construction Agreement
Ex.A3 01.03.2018 Copy of the Handing over possession
Certificate
Ex.A4 02.09.2021 Copy of legal notice along with
acknowledgement
Ex.A5 Copy of Sanctioned plan
Ex.A6 Copy of photographs of the parking area
Ex.A7 Copy of Alternative Parking Plan suggested
by the opposite party
Ex.A8 Email communication between the
complainants and opposite party
Ex.A9 01.04.2022 Copy of Certificate given by the consulting
Civil & Structural Engineer
Ex.A10 Copy of Drawing submitted by the
consulting Civil & Structural Engineer
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R.SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Index : Yes/ No
KIR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/July/2023
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.