Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

332/2010

S.Sathish kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Heritage Property Development Company Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N.L.Rajah Dharmarajan

08 Mar 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 25.08.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 08.03.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. 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., PGDCLP.                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.332/2010

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 08^TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

                               

1. S. Satishkumar

2. S. Jayaprakash,

3. S. Chandrasekar,

All are residing at:-

Door No.110/132, Second Main Road,

Heritage Jayendra Nagar,

Sembakkam,

Chennai – 600 073.                                                       .. Complainants.                                                      

..Versus..

 

Heritage Property Development Company Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director

Mr. V. Krishnaprasadh,

‘Heritage Vasundhara’,

Old No.38, New No.18, Umapathy Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

          

Counsel for the complainants   :  M/s. J. Dharmarajan

Counsel for the Opposite party :  M/s. Rugan & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from June 2003 till date of payment and to carry out all unattended works mentioned by the opposite party in his email dated:06.11.2008 with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.

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

The complainants submit that they are the brothers purchased plot Nos.110 & 131 from the opposite party measuring an extent of 2,860 sq. ft. and entered into a Construction Agreement dated:09.06.2003 for constructing a built-up area of 1,800 sq. ft. at a total sale consideration of Rs.20,61,400/-.  The complainants submit that the opposite party has given possession of the said property on 06.09.2005 with ‘No Due Certificate’.   The complainants submit that as per the Agreement for sale of land developments, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party towards Corpus Fund.  The complainants have paid the said sum to the opposite party as part of the total consideration.  The complainants submit that the said Corpus Fund shall be used by the Owners’ Association for the purpose of maintenance of land and buildings after handing over the property by the opposite party.  But the opposite party paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- alone to the Owners’ Association. The balance amount of Rs.25,000/- has not been paid to the complainant. Hence, the complainant issued a letter dated:10.08.2008 to the opposite party claiming the said sum of Rs.25,000/- for which, the opposite party sent  a reply dated:01.09.2008 in detail demanding a sum of Rs.2,06,204/- for the reason that the complainants has to construct 2,503 sq. ft.   But they have constructed only 1,800 sq. ft.   The balance of 703 sq. ft. was not constructed resulting a loss at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. ft. totalling of Rs.70,300/-.  The complainants submit that since only one building constructed and the Corpus Fund shall be only one alone.  The non-refund of the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- is attributable to misappropriation of funds and unfair trade practice and also would hold the opposite party for negligence.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that the complainants entered into an agreement of sale of land, Development and Construction dated:09.06.2003.  The Sale Deed was executed and the building was handed over to the complainants with ‘No Due Certificate’.  The complainants purchased plot Nos.110 & 131 and hence the opposite party extended a special discount of Rs.50,000/- for each booking against the maximum normal discount of Rs.25,000/-.  The opposite party had given 2 special discounts of Rs.50,000/- each for 2 houses.  Since the complainants had clubbed two houses into one, the discount offered for 2 houses/plots into special discount of Rs.50,000/- only for the combined plots/ houses.   The opposite party states that each plot deserves Corpus Fund of Rs.25,000/- each.   Since 2 plots purchased by the complainants and clubbed into one unit only the constructed plots / houses there is a discount of Rs.50,000/- towards Corpus Fund was collected.  The opposite party states that the Corpus Fund was collected on 09.06.2003 claiming the said amounts in the year 2010.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainants has filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite party. 

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainants are entitled to get refund of sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled have an undertaking of the opposite party to carry out all unattended works with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The opposite party filed his written arguments.  Heard the complainants’ Counsel.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainants pleaded and contended that they are the brothers purchased plot Nos.110 & 131 from the opposite party measuring an extent of 2,860 sq. ft. and entered into a Construction Agreement for constructing a building of 1,800 sq. ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,61,400/- is admitted.  Further the contention of the complainants is that the opposite party given possession of the said property on 06.09.2005 with ‘No Due Certificate’ also admitted as per Ex.A2. Further the contention of the complainants is that as per the Ex.A1, Agreement for sale of land development and construction, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party towards Corpus Fund.  This amount is included in the total sale consideration paid by the complainant. The said fact is seen from the statement of accounts as per Ex.A17 dated:17.05.2006 & 17.03.2007 furnished by the complainant.  Further the contention of the complainants is that the said Corpus Fund shall be used by the Owners’ Association for the purpose of maintenance of land and buildings after handing over the property by the opposite party.  But the opposite party paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- alone to the Owners’ Association. The balance amount of Rs.25,000/- has not been paid to the complainant. Hence, the complainant issued a letter dated:10.08.2008 as per Ex.A5 to the opposite party claiming the said sum of Rs.25,000/- for which, the opposite party sent  a reply dated:01.09.2008 as per Ex.A6 in detail demanding a sum of Rs.2,06,204/- from the complainant as counter claim for the reason that the complainants has initially given consent to construct 2,503 sq. ft.   But later on he requested the opposite party to construct only 1800 sq. ft. They have constructed only 1,800 sq. ft. as per the request of the complainant’s letter dated:12.11.2003.  The balance of 703 sq. ft. was not constructed resulting a loss at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. ft. totalling of Rs.70,300/- to the opposite party.  Equally for each plot, the purchaser shall pay Rs.50,000/- towards Corpus Fund.  In this case, admittedly, the complainants had purchased 2 plots Nos.110 & 131.  But paid only one Corpus Fund of Rs.50,000/- instead of two corpus fund of Rs.1,00,000/- claiming balance amount of Rs.25,000/-on the ground of excess corpus fund is unethical.  Further the contention of the complainants is that the opposite party agreed to construct one building of 1,800 sq.ft. cannot raise such allegation of total area of construction is 2,860 sq. ft.; cannot be acceptable.  Further the contention of the complainants is that since only one building constructed and the Corpus Fund shall be only one alone.  But admittedly, the complainants purchased 2 plots it cannot be treated as one unit.  Each plot should have its Corpus Fund.  There is no substantial contention raised by the complainants against this proposition. 

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, the complainants  entered into an agreement of sale of land, Development and Construction dated:09.06.2003.  Due Sale Deed was executed and the building was handed over to the complainants with ‘No Due Certificate’.  The complainants purchased plot Nos.110 & 131 and hence the opposite party extended a special discount of Rs.50,000/- for each booking against the maximum normal discount of Rs.25,000/-.  The opposite party had given 2 special discounts of Rs.50,000/- each for 2 houses.  Since the complainants made agreement for constructing a single unit instead of 2 houses special discount of Rs.50,000/- given.  Actually and ordinarily, there shall be two houses i.e. one house each in a plot.   Construction of one unit in 2 plots resulting loss of Rs.70,300/-.  But there is nothing recital in the agreement or sale deed except in the exchange of notices.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that each plot deserves Corpus Fund of Rs.50,000/- each.  Since 2 plots purchased by the complainants and one unit only is constructed there is a special discount of Rs.50,000/- towards Corpus Fund was collected.  The Corpus Fund shall be utilized by the Owners’ Association is not disputed in this case.   The allegation that the opposite party paid only a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the Owners’ Association is not correct since it is seen from Ex.A8 that the opposite party has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Sathish Kumar and another sum of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Jeyaprakash.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service committed on the part of the opposite party.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, the Corpus Fund was collected on 09.06.2003 claiming the said amounts in the year 2010 is clear barred by limitation.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 08^th day of March 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	09.06.2003	Copy of Agreement for Sale  of land developments
Ex.A2	06.09.2005	Copy of handing over of House No.110 & 131
Ex.A3	05.12.2007	Copy of Government of Tamil Nadu Registration Department cash receipts -6
Ex.A4	26.11.2007	Copy of Cash receipts for encumbrance certificates
Ex.A5	10.08.2008	Copy of complainants’ letter to the opposite party
Ex.A6	01.09.2008	Copy of the opposite party’s letter to the complainants
Ex.A7	22.09.2008	Copy of the complainants letter to opposite party
Ex.A8	06.11.2008	Copy of the opposite party’s email to complainants
Ex.A9	10.11.2008	Copy of the opposite party’s letter to complainants
Ex.A10	17.11.2008	Copy of rejoinder of the complainants to opposite party
Ex.A11	26.12.2008	Copy of the opposite party’s letter to complainants
Ex.A12		Copy of brochure
Ex.A13	29.03.2003	Copy of Details of project to buyers
Ex.A14	14.05.2003	Copy of Details of project to buyers
Ex.A15	22.05.2003	Copy of revised allotment letter
Ex.A16	04.07.2008	Copy of Circular issued by Association on Corpus Fund
Ex.A17	17.05.2006 & 17.03.2007	Statement of accounts as on 17.05.2006 & Statement of accounts as on 17.03.2007

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT