DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2023
Filed on: 03/06/2015
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C. C. No. 342 /2015
COMPLAINANT
1. Rajalekshmi C.S., W/o Raju Menon, 28/1364B, Gopiratnam, AV John Alungal Road, Padam Stop,Kadavanthra, Pin-682 020.
2. Raju Menon, 28/13648, Gopiratnam, AV John Alungal Road, Padam Stop, Kadavanthra, Pin-682 020.
(Rep. by Adv. P. Sanjay, M/s. Sanjay & Parvathi, ‘Neeti’, CC 43/375K, Paul Abrao Road, Ernakaulam 682018)
Between
OPPOSITE PARTY:
Jain Housing & Constructions Ltd. G-361, Main Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin-682 036 Represented by its Managing Director.
(Rep. by Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil, Karippaparambil Associates, HB No. 48, Panampilly Nagar P.O., Kochi 682036)
FINAL ORDER
V. Ramachandran, Member:
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The Complainants, husband, and wife approached this Commission because the opposite party has received much more than the sale consideration of an apartment but possession of the same has not been given so far and the apartment also suffers from defective workmanship. The opposite party, a private limited company, is engaged in the construction and sale of multi-storeyed buildings in and around Kochi and has its registered office at the above-said address. The opposite party is the builder of a multi-storied building called "JAINS WOODFORD that was advertised extensively promising a high standard of quality and several amenities. The complainants came across an advertisement for the sale of apartments and approached the opposite party in October 2013 for the same. The complainants agreed to purchase the apartment on the 16th floor that the opposite party agreed to complete in all respect with Italian Marble flooring and superior quality fittings etc. and were shown another apartment in the building for their judgment and satisfaction. The complainants suggested that one bedroom be reduced so that the hall becomes bigger in size, to which the Opposite party readily agreed and promised to complete all works within a fortnight. Complainants were asked to pay an advance of Rs. 5 lakhs that was paid on 12-10-13. After a few weeks when the complainants visited the apartment, it was found that work had not started and the complainants were told that since the floor tile was not available it would take a few more days. Later again when the complainants enquired the General Manager of the opposite party informed them that a superior floor tile will arrive soon and the same will be used to complete the work. However, even this did not happen. The complainants were thereafter told that they could select the tile provided the opposite party company agrees on the price. The complainants went around the city and after several visits finalized the tile that would suit their taste and the price band of the opposite party. The complainants enquired why registration of the apartment was not taking place they were told that the Sales Manager, Mr. Naveen was not available because he had gone for eye surgery and therefore everything had halted. The complainants kept waiting and were later told that registration can be done only after the work is finished. Meanwhile, it was found that during the rains 2 walls were leaking and major repairs had to be carried out. It was agreed that the leakage in the wall will be rectified. However, the work was not carried out as promised. Much later the opposite party informed that their workers are not being permitted inside the building by the Association of Apartment Owners who was against the Opposite Party for the Opposite Party had committed a breach of promise to them. Complainants, therefore, visited the Apartment Owners Association to find a solution because they had already paid a huge amount to the builder. Complainants were told that the builder had not paid the maintenance amount for the several flats and is also not transferred the corpus to the Association that it is supposed to. The Complainants then approached the Opposite Party and they were told the complainants that the association had raised the maintenance charges from Rs. 125 per square feet to Rs. 250 and this was not acceptable to the builder. Since the complainants were in a fix now, the complainants were forced to pay the arrears due to the association with respect to their apartment that was still not sold to them. The opposite party agreed to reimburse the arrears @ Rs.125 per sq. ft. if the complainants pay the difference in increased maintenance charges to the Association. To purchase peace and to ensure that work in the apartment is not stopped the complainants paid the arrears of maintenance though he was not bound to. Despite all this, the work in the apartment did not take place in time. Even though the amount towards stamp paper and other expenses including the lawyer fee for registration was paid several months before there was still no sign of registration taking place. The complainants had already paid around 75 lakhs and the balance of Rs. 25 lakhs were ready as a bank loan but the opposite party went on delaying the registration. On pressurising the opposite party with repeated requests, the opposite party made a shocking demand for a huge amount towards interest on alleged 'delayed payments. The complainants made repeated requests and initially, the opposite party agreed to reduce interest by Rs. 2 lakhs. The complainants wrote to the opposite party stating that it was highly unfair because the delay was not happened due to the complainants but by the opposite party. It was also pointed out by email dated 7-02-2015 that it is found that 2 different colours of tiles are laid in the bedroom and that the floor tiles and bathroom fittings are of much inferior quality and cheaper than the price estimated. After the receipt of the mail, the opposite party suddenly decided not to give any reduction but to charge Rs. 7 Lakh towards interest. Since the complainants were completely trapped, and had no other option but to somehow get the apartment registered in her name. The complainants had even made a request for a refund of the entire money received from the complainants so that he could get back his money but there was no response from the opposite party. Finally, with great difficulty, the registration took place on 7- 04-2015.Even after the registration had taken place the opposite party refused to hand over possession of the apartment. It is understood that the work was not fully completed and that is the reason why the apartment is not handed over. The complainants asked the opposite party to ensure that the tiles are of uniform colour and that the defects pointed out be rectified before the same is handed over.
Meanwhile, the complainants informed the opposite party that he would like to have the housewarming ceremony along with Vishu and therefore requested that the apartment be handed over sufficiently early. The customer care department of the opposite party informed the complainants that the apartment would be handed over on the Saturday prior to Vishu viz., 14-04-2015. The complainants accordingly invited her friends and relatives for house warming function on 15/04/2015. However, much to the shock and agony of the complainants the opposite party did not hand over the apartment as promised and later claimed that it was a communication mistake and it will be handed over only on 18/04/2015. Finally, it became clear that the opposite party was not ready and willing to hand over possession to the complainants. The opposite party stated that the key could be collected from the opposite party only after the complainants gave in writing that the apartment is being taken possession of in full and complete satisfaction. The complainants refused to give any such thing in writing because it was clear that the opposite party was using arm-twisting tactics to wriggle out of its liability with respect to the apartment. It is submitted that the complainants have already paid more than Rupees one crore and there is no reason why possession of the apartment is not handed over. It is understood that the opposite party has not laid Italian marble for the living area and all as promised and done in all the other apartments. Further, the tiles of different shades in the bedroom have also not been changed. The bathroom fittings are also not of the quality promised. The opposite party is also not ready and willing to reimburse the huge amount paid to the Association that was agreed to be paid to the complainants and which is at any rate, not the complainants' liability. The opposite party are also liable to give a detailed statement regarding the amounts received and the purpose for which the same has been received from the complainants including the breakup of interest charged by the opposite party because the complainants for the delay has been caused by the opposite party itself. It is submitted that all the above acts of the complainants amount to deficiency in service and are not liable to pay any interest the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainants for the same. A direction is also necessary from this honorable Commission to get possession of the apartment for which the entire money and much more has been paid to the opposite party.
The complainants had approached the commission seeking an order directing the Opposite party to declare that the opposite party is bound to forthwith hand over the possession of the apartment to the complainants, to fix Italian marble in the hall cum living room as done in the case of all other apartments in "Jain Woodford" at no further cost to the complainants, the opposite party to change the tiles of different shades and make them entirely of the same colour and shade at no further cost to the complainants and to reimburse the amounts received as interest on alleged delayed payment from the complainants, and to reimburse the amounts paid by the complainants to the apartment owners' association, to pay a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the delay and deficiency in service of the opposite party and award cost of this petition.
On 1.6.2015, the Commission returned the complaint as per the below direction:
“Perused Complaint. The value of the goods and the compensation claimed exceeds Rs.20 Lakhs and hence this Commission not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint wherein possession of an apartment worth more than 20 Lakhs is sought for. A complaint is returned for production & filing before State Commission / National Commission as the case may be.”
On 28.5.2016, the complainants filed an amended complaint before the commission with the following reliefs.:
“This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Opposite Party to
i) To pay compensation of Rs 20,000/- per month from the date of registration till the date of delivery of keys of the apartment to the complainants.
ii) Direct the opposite party to fix Italian marble in the hall cum living room as done in the case of all other apartments in "Jain Woodford" at no further cost to the complainants.
iii) Direct the opposite party to change the tiles of different shades and make it entirely of the same colour and shade at no further cost to the complainants.
iv) To repair the cracks seen in the walls of the apartment with good quality cement plaster and repaint the walls of the apartment.
iv) Direct the opposite party to reimburse the amounts received as interest on alleged delayed payment from the complainants.
v) Direct the opposite party to reimburse the amounts paid by the complainants to the apartment owners' association.
vi) Direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the delay and deficiency in service of the Opposite Party.
vii) To issue such other reliefs and all others that this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And
ix) Award cost of this petition.”
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party and the opposite party received the notice, entered appearance, and filed version.
3) Version of the Opposite Party
It is alleged in the complaint that Complainant had given the Opposite Party much more than the sale consideration of an apartment but possession of the same has not been given so far and the apartment suffers from defective workmanship. The above allegation is denied as the works in the apartment are fully completed as per the Opposite Party's demands and requirements. Since initially the apartment was not intended to be sold, it was built differently from other apartments in the same building. However, later the apartment was decided to be sold and the Complainant was informed about the same he agreed to purchase the same after necessary modifications are made as per Complainant's interests. There was no promise on the part of the Opposite party to complete all the works suggested by the Complainant within a fortnight as it is practically impossible and the same was communicated to the Complainant. The Complainant specifically directed the Opposite Party to use Italian Marble for flooring but as Italian Marble was out of stock the work was not started. The Opposite party informed the Complainant about this delay and assured them that the work will be completed as and when the Italian Marble is available. However, due to the continued insistence from the Complainant, the Opposite Party agreed that the Complainant can select any tile of their choice but within the budget estimated by the Opposite Party for flooring. As a result, the Complainant themselves selected Monalisa Tiles from the market and the same was approved by Opposite Party. The Opposite Party was ready to register the apartment in the name of the Complainant provided they make complete payment for the registration. However, the Complainant did not respond for 6 to 8 months. But later when Complainant approached the Opposite Party, the Sales Manager of the Opposite Party was hospitalized for surgery and he was not available for one month. It was intimated to the Complainant that Opposite Party was ready for registration as soon as the Sales Manager resumed office. Thereafter the apartment was registered only on 07.04.2015 due to a delay on the part of the Complainant. The Complainant joined the Owners Association of the Apartment and deposited an amount without informing the Opposite Party. Moreover, the issue with respect to maintenance is not known to the Opposite Party, and the amount if so paid to the Association with an increased rate as per the Association’s demand was not with the approval of the Opposite Party. The Complainant had only paid the Opposite Party Rs. 52, 50,000/- initially and when the balance was remitted on 07.04.2015, the Opposite Party registered the apartment in the name of the Complainant. The Opposite Party has only demanded the amount towards interest for delayed payments as per Clause 5, 6, and 7 of the Agreement for Sale. As soon as Complainant made full payment Opposite Party registered the apartment in the Complainant's name. Opposite Party has not refused to hand over the apartment to Complainant and the delay if so caused is because Complainant kept on demanding new alterations and modifications in the apartment. The allegation that the Opposite Party used two different colors of tile for flooring is denied as the Opposite Party has only used the tiles provided by Complainant and they themselves bought it from the market. The Opposite Party has no information as to any ceremony conducted by Complainant and the same was not informed to the Opposite Party. Moreover, the Opposite Party was ready to hand over the apartment however Complainant was not willing to take the keys to the apartment. As part of the handing over procedure, the Customer has to sign an affidavit stating the apartment is being taken in possession of in full and complete satisfaction before it is handed over to them. Unfortunately, Complainant was not ready to sign the same. The Complainant has not paid more than 1 crore Rupees for the apartment to Opposite Party as the apartment is only worth Rupees Sixty-Two lakhs. The Opposite Party has not made any promise that the flooring will be Italian Marble as in the other apartment as the present apartment was not built similarly to other apartments and the same was communicated to the Complainant. All the fittings used in the apartment are of the standard quality as specified in our agreement and the Payment schedule is provided on Page 3 of the Sale Agreement. The Complainant has paid the Association an amount without informing the Opposite Party and thus the same cannot be the liability of the Opposite Party. Moreover, Opposite Party has completed the work in the Apartment fully as per the requirements of the Complainant, and the delay if so caused is only because Complainant was not willing to make full payment for the apartment.
4) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 25 documents . The commission report was also marked as C-1 The evidence, in this case, consisted of the oral evidence of the first complainant as PW1, and 4 witnesses were examined on the side of the complainants as PW 2 to PW5. Exhibits A1 to A25 were marked on the side of the complainants.
Exbt.A-1- To A-25.
Exhibit A-2: Email dated 07-02-15 from Complainants to Opp. Party
Exhibit A-3: Email dated 24-02-15 from Complainants to Opp. Party
Exhibit A-4: Email dated 24-02-15 from Complainants to Opp. Party
On the side of the opposite party, the branch manager of the opposite party had filed the proof affidavit and Exhibits B1 to B8 were marked.
Exhibit B-1: Ownership certificate
Exhibit B-2: Property Tax-Official Receipt
Exhibit B-3: Application for flat allotment
Exhibit B-4: Agreement for sale of flat
Exhibit B-5: Copy of e-mail communication between the parties
Exhibit B-6: Copy of e-mail communication between the parties
Exhibit B-7: Letter issued to Federal bank by the opposite party
Exhibit B-8: Copy of receipt dated 07/04/2015
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
Whether the complaint is maintainable or not? (Point No. I).
The complainants had filed this complaint the opposite party has more than the sale consideration of an apartment but possession is not given and the apartment also suffers from defective workmanship.
The facts, in a nutshell, are that the delay in the offer of handing over the apartment occurred only due to the delay by the Opp. Party in completing the works. The complainants submitted that the workers of the opposite party were initially not permitted to enter the apartment complex by the Apartment Owners Association because of the Opp. Party was not paying maintenance charges and other dues to the association. Finally, it is only after the complainants paid the dues to the association that the workers were let in. These amounts due prior to the handing over were to be paid by the Opp. Party. But the work got delayed as soon as it started. The Opp. Party said that they did not have stock of Italian Marble and asked the complainants to find tiles of their choice. As directed by the OPs, the complainants were forced to select tiles and informed the Opp. Party, who purchased the same and took delivery of it. But still, the work was not completed by the Opp. Party. Even Though the apartment was finally registered on 10-12- 2014 before the completion of work and remaining works were completed only by month of April 2015. But when the complainants visited the apartment, they found several defects in the apartment and the workmanship was substandard. Tiles were of different colour in several places and there were cracks in the wall also. Fittings were also not of the brands promised by the Opposite Party. The Complainants visited the office of the Opp. Party on 22-04-15 along with PW2 and the Opp. Party agreed to hand over only if the complainants sign an affidavit that the apartment was in order and to their full satisfaction. Complainants refused to do it and Opp. Party, therefore, refused to hand over the key. The above complaint is filed because of a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked through her. On behalf of the complainants, PW4 (Sijo), the Finance Officer of complainant No.2, who all along interacted with representatives of OPs during the purchase transactions, was examined. He clearly states that he visited the office of the OPS on several occasions and also made payments to the OPs on behalf of the complainants. This is not disputed in cross-examination. After the complainants made the initial visits to the apartment and decided to purchase the same and communicate with the opposite party through Pw4 and all email communications (A6 to A19) were marked through Pw4. A24 is a letter issued from the Federal Bank, Girinagar regarding a loan of Rs 25,00,000/- sanctioned to the complainant that could not be availed due to the delay on the part of OPs. The above-said document is marked as A21 through PW5, Bank Manager. This is not disputed in cross-examination. PW3, former secretary of the Apartment owners Association has narrated the various issues that the apartment owners have faced with the builder and the problems that were detected in the same apartment building. As per IA 299/2015 the Advocate Commissioner conducted the local inspection on 24-06-2015 and has submitted the Commission Report marked as C-1). It is pointed out that the key to the said apartment was with Mr. Subin, a representative of the opposite party, and opened by him for inspection. Hence it is proved that possession was not handed over to the complainants. Complainants have twice filed applications for receiving keys to the apartment but the OPs, despite having received the entire sale consideration opposed the same each time. The Commission Report clearly proves that the contentions of the complainants were true. It is also found that Italian marble is not used for flooring in the living room and dining room. There was a difference in colour of the tiles used in several places. The apartment had leaks and cracks and dampness. Hence the case of the complainant is proven. It is submitted that even to start work in the apartment complainant had to pay the dues of the Opp. Party Builder to the Apartment Owners' Association. The complainants paid an amount of Rs 92, 252/- towards dues of the builder to the association for them to start the work. The builder could proceed with balance works only after the complainants paid the said amount, which the complainants were otherwise not bound to pay. Complainants have also thereafter paid quarterly maintenance charges @ Rs.5030/- (Rupees Five thousand and thirty only) per month till today though they are not given possession by the Opp. Party. The complainants have thus paid Rs.92,252/-) on 23-11-2014. Thereafter the complainants have paid monthly maintenance @ Rs.5030 X 84 months (as of 15/12/2021) totaling Rs.4,22,520/- and payments made till October 2022 is Rs.472820/- in total. Thus, the complainants have paid a total payment of Rs.5,14,772/- without being able to occupy the apartment. The complainants are entitled to receive the said amount from the Opp. Parties. The complainants have suffered serious injury because of the conduct of the Opp. Party. The complainants could not use the apartment for themselves or give it for rent. Rs.35,000/- per month as of today because the apartment is located in the apartment would easily fetch posh Panampilly Nagar area of Ernakulam. It would have fetched Rs 20,000-Rs.25000/- per month in 2015. The complainants have fairly claimed a nominal monthly rent of only Rs.20,000/- per month for not being able to occupy the apartment, and that too only from the date of registration. By that fact alone the complainants are entitled to Rs. 15,80,000/- as of 15/12/2021. As of today. 1.e., October 2022 the total amount @ Rs. 20,000/- comes to lakhs eighty thousand only). Rs. 17,80,000/- . Apart from paying the Association the entire dues of the Opp. Party the complainants were also forced to pay their contribution of painting charges of Rs.25,000/- to the association without getting custody of the apartment. Since the builder was in custody these payments were to be made by them. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence nor marked any witnesses to justify their actions. Though they did cite witnesses after the overwhelming evidence on behalf of the complainant they gave up evidence.
ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY OPPOSITE PARTY
The consumer complaint about praying for a direction to the opposite party to hand over possession of apartment No. 16 C together with compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs along with rectification of defects in construction. During the proceedings, the complainant amended the complaint as per the order dated 17.05.2016 in 1. A. No. 512/2015 deleting the first prayer for handing over possession of apartment No. 16 C. The Opposite party filed a version contending in short that the consumer complaint is not maintainable and that it is filed only on an experimental basis and consumer complaint does not make out any grounds for the reliefs claimed. The price of apartment No. 16 C is only Rs. 62 Lakhs. Hence the allegation that she paid more than Rs. 1 Crore is false. The registration and handing over possession of apartment No. 16 C in the name of the complainants were delayed only due to a delay in making payment by the complainants. There is absolutely no defect in construction. Initially, apartment No. 16 C was not intended for sale and it was built differently from other apartments in the same building. Hence prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint. From the aforesaid pleading and evidence, the following issues arise for consideration.
1) Whether this Consumer Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the consumer complaint
The specific pleading in paragraph 11 of the consumer complaint is that it is submitted that the complainants have already paid more than Rs. 1 Crore".
(b) The specific case of the opposite party in paragraph 7 of its version is that "The complainant has not paid more than 1 Crore rupees for the apartment as the apartment is only worth Rupees Sixty Two lakhs
(c) So admittedly the price of the apartment is minimum Rs. 62 Lakhs.
(d) It is settled by the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Consumer Commission that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission has to be determined on the basis of consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission, reliance is placed on Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd reported in 1 (2017) CPJ 1 (NC).
(e) In this case admittedly the minimum value of the apartment is Rs. 65 Lakhs. The further prayer is Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of registration till delivery of keys of the apartment, rectification of defects in the apartment along with compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs. Hence viewed from any angle this Consumer Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this consumer complaint in view of the specific pecuniary limitation of "does not exceed Rs. 20 Lakhs", the jurisdiction provided in Section 11 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the Consumer District Commission.
(f) Before the Consumer State Commission, Kerala the opposite party in C.C. No. 126/2019 had taken the contention that the State Commission, Kerala has no pecuniary jurisdiction since the sale price of the apartment is Rs. 73,78,740/- and the relief claimed is added to the price of the apartment it goes above Rs. 1 Core, the upper limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer State Commission. Consumer State Commission dismissed the maintainability issue Against which the opposite party preferred FA No. 2228/2019 before the Apex Consumer Commission in the case of Puravankara Ltd Vs. Indira Devi KG, The Hon'ble Apex Consumer Commission relying on Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd held on 23.01.2020 that in the present case, the compensation claimed by the complainant/respondent itself comes to more than Rs. 80 Lakhs. Even the compensation in terms of the first prayer would be about Rs. 64 Lakhs till the date on which the complaint was instituted, If the sale consideration of the apartment is added to the said compensation, the aggregate would come to much more that Rs, 1Crore. Therefore, the State Commission clearly has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.
(g) In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Consumer Commission the first issue has to be found in favour of the opposite party and the consumer complaint may be dismissed as it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission.
Two main allegations are made in the consumer complaint against the opposite party alleging negligence and deficiency in service on its part.
The first allegation is that the possession of apartment No. 16 C is not given to the complainants.
(a) It is evident that in the original complaint the first prayer was “Declare that the opposite party is bound to forthwith hand over possession of the apartment No. 16 C in Jain Wood Ford Apartment to the complainants".
(b) Along with the consumer, the complaint complainant had filed IA. No. 475/2015 praying for a direction to the opposite party to forthwith deliver the keys of the apartment to the complainants in the interest of justice.
(c) The said interlocutory application was withdrawn by the complainants on 16.10.2015.
(d) Further during the proceedings complainant amended the complaint as per the order dated 17.05.2016 in I.A. No. 512/2015 deleting the first prayer for handing over possession of apartment No. 16 C.
(e) Further, it is an admitted fact that it is the complainants who are paying the maintenance charges for apartment No. 16 C as is evidenced by Exhibits A2, A20, A22, A23, and A24.
(f) Furthermore, it had come in evidence that the owner's association in Jain Wood Ford apartment had introduced a biometric security system
(g) and not allowing the opposite party to enter into the apartment project dam Wood Ford as in evident Exhibit A24.
Taking into consideration the facts that the total amount of consideration paid by the complainant and the compensation asked for by the complainant together exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, the following orders are passed.
The total amount of consideration and compensation sought for by the complainant exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and hence the consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and therefore the instant complaint is fit only for dismissal and therefore dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 24nd day of March, 2023
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exbt. A1: Copy of agreement
Exbt A-2: Email dated 07-02-15 from Complainants to Opp. Party
Exbt A-3: Email dated 24-02-15 from Complainants to Opp. Party
Exbt A-4: Email dated 24-02-15 from Complainants to Opp. Party
Exbt. A5: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A6: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A7: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A8: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A9: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A10: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A11: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A12: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A13: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A14: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A15: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A16: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A17: Receipt dated 13/11/2014
Exbt. A18: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A19: E-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A20: Certificate issued by Federal bank
Exbt. A21: Receipt dated 30/03/2015
Exbt. A22: Bank Deposit slip
Exbt. A23: Receipt dated 11/10/2021
Exbt. A24: Certificate issued by Woodford Owners Association
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit B-1: Ownership certificate
Exhibit B-2: Property Tax-Official Receipt
Exhibit B-3: Application for flat allotment
Exhibit B-4: Agreement for sale of flat
Exhibit B-5: Copy of e-mail communication between the parties
Exhibit B-6: Copy of e-mail communication between the parties
Exhibit B-7: Letter issued to Federal bank by the opposite party
Exhibit B-8: Copy of receipt dated 07/04/2015
DEPOSITIONS
PW1: Rajalakshmi C.S. (Complainant)
PW2: Raichel George
PW3: Roby Mathew
PW4: Sijo C.R. (Advocate Commissioner)
C1: Commission Report
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 342/2015
Order Date: 24/03/2023
