Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

142/2012

R.Venugopal, - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.Sundrajan, Prop:M/s.Iswarya Builders - Opp.Party(s)

A.M.Arokia Thilakar

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  19.06.2012

                                                                Order pronounced on:  20.09.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 20^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.142/2012

 

 

 

R.Venugopal,

Flat No:S-1, Second Floor,

Iswarya Jasmine Apartment,

Door No:34/90,

Muthamman Koil Street,

Ayanavaram,

Chennai – 600 023.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

G.Sundarajan,

Prop:M/s. Iswarya Builders,

No:75, J-Block,

I  Main Road, Anna Nagar (E),

Chennai – 600 102.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 28.06.2012

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.A.M.Arockia Thilakar

Counsel for  Opposite party                     : M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant entered an agreement with the opposite party on 28.10.2009 to purchase a flat for a consideration of Rs.12,95,800/- with UDS 586 sq.ft. The opposite party constructed the flat as per the construction agreement between them. The Complainant paid nearly a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as follows:

1. Land cost                                              :Rs.12,95,800.00
2. Construction Cost                                 :Rs.23,54,620.00
3. Stamp & Registration Charges              :Rs.  1,29,580.00
4. MES, M.W.S.connection charges                  :Rs.     70.000.00
5. Car parking                                          :Rs.  1,50,000.00

                                                  

                                                                Rs.40,00,000.00

                                                       

The opposite party constructed the flat with substandard materials and the flat is not in a stability condition. This fact was known to the knowledge of the Complainant at the time inspection before taking possession of the flat. The Complainant found the following defects in the flat.

1.R.C.C. roofing was not done in the prescribed manner, everywhere seepages, at so many places the R.C.C. inner plastering were about to fall.

2. On the terrace the weathering coarse was not done properly, without using the surki mortar and water proof chemicals.

3. Inside the flat the uneven tiles were laid, different colours without any wort of matching used in so many places.

4. Skirting work done very shabbily.

5. Sunshades were not at use-full in any manner.

6. Warrobes done with different sizes of cuddappa stones – uneven.

7. In the kichen broken granite stone was laid

8. In the wall so many places cracks found.

9. Windows wood was broken – uneven finishing.

10. Sanitary fittings all sub-standard-rejected materials were used.

11. No usage of car parking.

Proper proportion was not followed in the R.C.C roof. The opposite party has just laid the roof tiles over the roof without applying necessary lime-brick mixture with water proof chemicals. The opposite party also collected a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards car parking. The Complainant also issued a legal notice to rectify the defects and even after receipt of the same the Opposite Party  did not rectify it. Hence the Complainant availed the service of the Corporation of Chennai license surveyor to find out their requirement of amount for the rectification of the work. The Civil Engineer gave report and quoted a sum of Rs.7.75 lakhs required for rectification. Hence the Complainant filed this complaint to rectify the defect and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party constructed and handed over the flat as per the agreement entered with the Complainant. The Complainant constructed the flat with standard quality and the work to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Before filing this complaint the opposite party wanted to see the flat and to rectify the defect if any. However the Complainant did not permit the opposite party to verify and rectify it. The Complainant after taking over the possession and after two years only alleges deficiency and grievances and the same were already redressed to the opposite party as follows:

a. Rain Water leakage at Window in Complainant Apartment has been done and verbal approval for the work has been given by the Complainant’s wife which she would be aware of. 

b. On 02.10.2010 Ladder of water taken work has been completed.

c. On 18.10.2010 floor tiles for toilet in terrace and ventilator has been completed.

d. On 20.10.2010 Staircase tiles in ground floor has been completed.

e. Water logging in parking area rectification has been completed and practically it is not possible to prevent water entering the parking area during rainy times since sides are left open for ventilation.

f. Exterior painting of flats is completed duly with two coats.

g. Parking of car is marked individually and allotted to the owners.

As such there is no deficiency committed by the opposite party and he had rectified all the defect alleged by the Complainant and hence prays to dismiss the complaint.   

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant approached  the opposite party to purchase a flat S1 at No.90, Muthamman Koil Street, Ayanavaram Chennai – 23 at 2^nd Floor to an extent of 1109 sq.ft for a consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- including UDS land cost of Rs.12,95,800/- and accordingly Ex.A1 allotment letter issued to the Complainant by the opposite party.

          5. The Complainant alleges  several deficiencies in his complaint at para 10 and however the opposite party denies that he had rectified all the defects alleged by the Complainant and therefore he has not committed any deficiency and prays to dismiss the complaint.

          6. An advocate commissioner K.Bhasker was appointed and he inspected along with a Civil Engineer and filed report Ex.C1 and Civil Engineer report and photographs copies are marked as Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 and second time an another advocate commissioner J.Gangabavani was appointed and she inspected along with a Civil Engineer and the advocate commissioner report is marked as Ex.C7 and her Civil Engineer report marked as Ex.C9. In both the reports the engineer noted that air cracks were found and rain water seepage marks were scene in the rooms, ceiling etc. In Ex.C1 engineer report Mr.K.Bhasker he had given that more air cracks and dampness were found. If dampness continued it will reduce the life of the building due to defects said there in. However in Ex.C5 Engineer Report, he did not say anything about, how to rectify the defects pointed out by him. However in Ex.C9 Engineers Report Mr.P.Anbarasan Engineer gave his conclusion to repair the defects that by way of relaying of tiles, wall putty with painting works and cracks can be repaired by way of touch up, batch work etc. However Mr.P.Anbarasan engineer also did not say the requirement of money to rectify such defects. Therefore in view of the defects mentioned in EX.C9 ,we hold that the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.

7. POINT NO:2

           While pendency of proceedings before this Forum the opposite party offered to rectify the defects and the Complainant also allowed him to rectify the defects in his flat. It is admitted on either side that the Opposite Party attended work for two days. According to the opposite party he has spent about a sum of   Rs.96,620/- to rectify the defects as stated in his memo  on 01.08.2016 in this Forum and however the Complainant though admits that the opposite party rectified certain defects, he did not spent money as stated by him. While considering the documents filed and rival submission of the parties, this Forum unable to find out what is the actual defects remaining and what could be the requirement of money to rectify the defects. In such circumstances this Forum is of the  view that to rectify the defects, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.30,000/- would meet ends of justice to rectify the defects and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered   to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards  rectification of defects to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.     

        Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 20^th  day of September 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 28.10.2009                   Allotment Letter with plan

Ex.A2 dated 04.10.2010                   Letter by Complainant

Ex.A3 dated 07.10.2010                   Reply letter by Opposite Party

Ex.A4 dated 13.11.2010                   Legal Notice by Complainant

Ex.A5 dated 16.11.2010                   Acknowledgement card

Ex.A6 dated 08.12.2010                   Telegram to Opposite Party

Ex.A7 dated 15.03.2012                   Engineer Report

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY :

                                      …NIL…..

LIST OF COUR DOCUMENTS:

Ex.C1 dated           NIL                     Advocate Commissioner Report

Ex.C2 dated 27.11.2013                   Notice

Ex.C3 dated 27.11.2013                   Notice

Ex.C4 dated 30.11.2013                   Minutes

Ex.C5 dated 20.01.2014                   Civil Engineer Report

Ex.C6 dated NIL                     Photograph copies

Ex.C7 dated NIL                     Advocate Commissioner Report                         

Ex.C8 dated  NIL                    Original Photo copies

Ex.C9 dated 27.03.2015                   Civil Engineer’s Report

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT