Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/408/2007

V.Muralidharan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Guru Raghavendra Foundation - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ganesan

18 Dec 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   27.09.2007

                                                                        Date of Order :   18.12.2017

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.408/2007

TUESDAY THIS 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

1. V. Muralidharan,

2. Smt. Radha Muralidharan,

Flat No.F-5, First Floor,

‘A” Block,

“Golden Jubilee Garden”,

No.181, Pallavaram,

Chennai 600 043.                                             Complainants

 

                                        ..Vs..

1. M/s. Guru Reghavendra Foundation,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

B. Murugeswaran,

Having office at No.10,

Vadiveu Mudali Street,

Perambur, Chennai 600 011.

 

2. The Central Govt. Staff Housing

Welfare Society,

Rep. by its Chairman

Mr. V.K. Bhagavathy,

No.30, South Usman Road,

T.Nagar, Chenai 600 017.                           Opposite parties.  

 

Counsel for Complainants         :   M/s.  R.S.Raveendhren & another          

Counsel for opposite party-1     :   M/s. V. Balaji & another   

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to rectify the complaint mentioned defects in the Flat No.F-5, and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

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

         The complainants submit that the 2^nd opposite party represented to the complainant that they had an agreement with Mr. B.Murugeshwaran and 10 others who are the owners of the property bearing plot No.1 to 10 in golden Jubilee Garden, Pallavaram, Chennai 43 measuring 52500 sq.ft.  The complainants further state that Mr. B. Murugeshwaran S/o. V.K. Bhagavathy as power agent entered into a development agreement for construction of residential flats  for the benefit of the members of the 2^nd opposite party in which the complainants are the members.   On believing the act of  the 2^nd opposite party as bonafide, the complainants entered into a construction agreement dated 26.6.2005 with Mr. B. Murugeshwaran and the 1^st opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards advance.   The total construction (viz) land and building shall be Rs.13,30,000/- for plinth area of 1230 sq. ft. in A-Block, Flat No.5, in the first floor.  As per clause-8 of the construction agreement of the flat shall construct and deliver the possession within 12 months.   As per Clause-12 of the construction agreement if any delay in payment of consideration, the complainants should pay 2% interest.  On 4.7.2005 the sale deed of undivided share of 475 sq. ft was executed infavour of the complainants.   Further the complainants also state that they availed loan from HDFC Bank and paid the entire balance sale consideration without any default or delay.  On 28.9.2005 the opposite party informed the complainants that the flat is ready to take possession.  The complainant also took possession on seeing the flat the complainants shocked and surprised  to find  various deficiencies in construction including deviations and unauthorized construction and poor workmanship; etc.  is as follows:

1. Water seepage in Master bedroom wall, side wall, both master bedroom toilet and common toilet, study room, balcony room and kitchen paints started peeling off.
2.  No sun shade in kitchen.
3.  Lot of pipeline holes and other holes have been left unattended.
4. All doors are bad and gaps in windows to be filled up.
5. Faulty electricity meter provided and has to be changed.
6. Lot of cracks all over the walls.

Hence the complainants issued notice through the flat owners  association on 11.12.2005 and 2.11.2006.  The opposite party even after receipt of the notice failed and neglected to carry out the rectification of the defects.    As such the act of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainants.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in the Written Version filed by the 1st opposite party is  as follows:

      The 1^st opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The 1^st opposite party submit that in pursuance of the said agreement the 1^st opposite party has executed the sale deed of undivided share on 4.7.2005 in favour of the complainants.   Even though the opposite parties stipulated the payment schedule as per clause 7 (a) to (e) of the construction agreement the complainants never paid amount as per stipulation.    Further the 1^st opposite party also state that  the complainants have taken possession on 28.9.2005 with good and sound conditions.   The complainants have taken possession without any defect or deficiency.  The letter dated 9.9.2006 relates to maintenance work of the complex and it has nothing to do with the individual grievance. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Inspite of service of notice the opposite party-2 is called absent and set exparte.

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainants have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 marked.  Proof affidavit of 1^st  opposite party filed and no documents  marked on the side of the  1^st opposite party.

5.   The points for the consideration is: 

Whether the opposite parties liable to rectify the complaint mentioned defects in Flat No.5, A-Block, Golden Jubilee Garden as prayed for?

 

Whether the complainant is entitled to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for ?

 

6. POINTS 1 & 2:

 

         

          The complainant filed written arguments.  The 1^st opposite party has not preferred to file neither written arguments nor oral arguments.   Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version of 1st opposite party, proof affidavit of complainant and documents.  The complainant  pleaded in the complaint and contended that the 2^nd opposite party represented to the complainant that they had an agreement with Mr. B.Murugeshwaran and 10 others who are the owners of the property bearing plot No.1 to 10 in golden Jubilee Garden, Pallavaram, Chennai 43 measuring 52500 sq.ft. is admitted.   Mr. B. Murugeshwaran S/o. V.K. Bhagavathy as power agent entered into  a development agreement for the construction of residential flats  for the benefit of the members of the 2^nd opposite party in which the complainants are the members.   On believing the act  of the 2^nd opposite party as bonafide, the complainants entered into a construction agreement dated 26.6.2005 with Mr. B. Murugeshwaran and the 1^st opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards advance as per Ex.A1. The total construction cost (viz) land and building shall be Rs.13,30,000/- for the plinth area of 1230 sq. ft. in A-Block, Flat No.5, in the first floor.  As per clause-8 of the construction agreement, the flat shall be constructed and deliver the possession within 12 months.   As per Clause-12 of the construction agreement Ex.A1 if any delay in payment of consideration, the complainants should pay 2% interest.  On 4.7.2005 the sale deed of the undivided share of 475 sq. ft was executed infavour of the complainants as per Ex.A2.  The complainants availed from loan from HDFC Bank and paid the entire balance sale consideration without any default or delay.  On 28.9.2005 the opposite party informed the complainants that the flat is ready to take possession.  The complainant also took possession on seeing the flat the complainants shocked and surprised  to find  various deficiencies in construction including deviations and unauthorized construction and poor workmanship; etc.

7. Water seepage in Master bedroom wall, side wall, both master bedroom toilet and common toilet, study room, balcony room and kitchen paints started peeling off.
8.  No sun shade in kitchen.
9.  Lot of pipeline holes and other holes have been left unattended.
10. All doors are bad and gaps in windows to be filled up.
11. Faulty electricity meter provided and has to be changed.
12. Lot of cracks all over the walls.

Hence the complainants issued notice through the flat owners  association on 11.12.2005 and 2.11.2006 vide Ex.A5 & Ex.A6.  The opposite party even after receipt of the notice failed and neglected to carry out the rectification of the defects pointed out in the notice.   Further the complainants contended that the deviation in construction can be regularized by the opposite parties as per G.O. of the year 1998, 2002 and 2005 deviation in the building cannot be regularized because the building is constructed in the year 2005.  As per G.O. of the year 2007 due regularization can be done but it is not carried out.   But in this case in order to prove the defects in the construction the complainants has not preferred to take Advocate commission or Qualified Engineer. 

7.     The contention of the opposite party is that as per Ex.A1 due agreement for construction executed and it came into force.   As per clause-7(a)  of the construction agreement the complainants has not paid the amount in time.   On the other hand the complainants availed HDFC Bank loan and paid the amount.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that  on  28.9.2005 the complainants took possession of the apartment with good and sound conditions as per Ex.A3.    The complainants  has not proved the alleged deficiency in various work.   Equally the alleged deviation also has not been proved by the complainant. No notice of any kind issued by the local bodies with regard to the deviation.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the complainants has not proved the deficiency of service of the opposite party and is not entitled to any relief sought for in the complaint and the points 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 the18^thday  of  December  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT

Complainants’ side documents:

Ex.A1   27.6.2005 -  Copy of Memorandum of Agreement.

Ex.A2  4.7.2005    -  Copy of Sale deed

Ex.A3  28.9.2005  -  Copy of possession letter issued by opp. parties.

Ex.A4  11.12.2005         -  Copy of letter by the Association to the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A5  9.9.2006    -  Copy of letter by the association to the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A6  2.11.2006  -  Copy of letter by the association to the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A7  17.9.2006  -  Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A8  24.9.2007  -  Copy of reply

Ex.A9                 -  Photos

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -       Nil 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.