KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
C.C. 22/12
JUDGMENT DATED. 28.1.13
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATH ALI : HON. PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA :HON. MEMBER
COMPLAINANT
M.P. Abraham, S/o Joseph Pothen,
Malayil House, West Othera P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta District
Rep. by his Agent, Thomas Varghese, Kuravanolical House, Vechuchira P.O, Vechuchira, Ranni, Pathanamthitta through Power of Attorney.
(Rep. by Adv. S. Sunil Narayanan & C.S. Rajmohan)
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTY
John.C.P., Chandraviruthil House,
Kulakkad, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
JUDGMENT
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON.MEMBER
This consumer complaint filed by the complainant for section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party. The date of the complaint filed on 18.4.2012. As per the complaint the complainant rentered service from the opposite party under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party is doing the business of financing and Building constructions under the name and style as C.V. P Properties Pvt. Ltd.
2. The opposite party entered into an agreement with the complainant for constructing a building with an area of 1315 Sq. Ft. on the 5th Floor Number as V/3 BR/B in the proposed multi storied building complex in accordance with the plan prepared by the opposite party for the complainant for the consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- for the complainant paid to the opposite party. The complainant paid total cost as per the payment schedule. As on this date, they are repeatedly requested, the opposite party did not handover the build up flat to the complainant for residential purpose as agreed. On 24.7.2000 the opposite party executed to the complainant on a flat as per Deed No. 2178/2000 SRO, Thiruvalla as the opposite party deceitfully resold the same to some other person. Subsequently on 7,8,2008, that the opposite party executed the agreement with the complainant to construct the disputed flat to the complainant. As on this date the opposite party did not complete the construction of the said flat. The opposite party is liable to handover the completed flat to the complainant and failing which the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant and liable to pay an amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- and 12% interest from the date of the agreement and compensation and cost to the complainant. The act of the opposite party is unfair trade practice with the intention to exploit the complainant economically to cause huge loss and irrecoverable loss to the complainant. Deficiency in service committed by the complainant may be reckoned seriously compensated to the complainant. The complainant send reminders twice but the opposite party did not complete the construction of the flat even after received the consideration. As per the agreement the opposite party is liable to handover the flat to the complainant.
3. The complainant alleged that the act of the opposite party is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The prayer of the complainant in the complaint is that; this commission may be pleased to pass an order to the opposite party to handover the residential area of 1315 sq.ft. on the 5th floor number is V/3BR/B in Resurvey No. 198/25. 1,2,3,4,198/39 in Thiruvalla Muri, Thiruvalla village immediately fall in order to opposite party to pay
Rs. 13,50,000/- being the interest at 12% for the amount till 7th April, 2012 and further interest @12% till realization and also may be pleased to order compensation of Rs. 1lakh from the opposite party for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party. The opposite party committed unfair trade practice falsely representing to deliver build up flat to the complainant receiving huge amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- and the practice of the opposite party deceptive as per the complainant. The cause of action was arosed on the date of the F.I.R. 25.8.2012 which was lodged against the opposite party.
4. After the admission of the complaint on 2.5.12 which filed on 18.4.2012 this Commission admitted the complaint and issued notice to the opposite party. But the opposite party’s notice was returned with an endorsement that the house was locked. It also ordered by the Commission to publish the address of the opposite party in the Kerala Kaumudi daily and the paper publication was also produced by the complainant on 12.11.2012. The opposite party called in the open court, then absent and there is no representation from any corner of the bar and set ex-parte. The case posted for filing ex-parte affidavit on 30.11.12 and the exparte affidavit was filed by the complainant on 7.12.12 and the produced documents were marked as Ext. P1 to P5 from the part of the complainant. The Exhibit P1 is the agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party and Ext. P2 and Ext. P3 are the intimation sent by the complainant to the opposite party and Ext. P4 is the copy of the F.I.R. filed by the complainant.
5. On this day this complaint came before this Commission on 7.12.12 for final hearing the counsel for the complainant argued the case on the strength of the evidence adduced by Ext. P1 to P5 from the part of the complainant. This Commission considered the fact, circumstances and evidence of the case and we satisfied that there is a solid case for the complainant against the opposite party under the provisions of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which was committed by the opposite party. This commission given ever somany chances to the opposite party to appear and contest the case. This is the part and parcel of give a natural justice to the opposite party. But the attitude of the opposite party is totally adamant and deliberately cheat and intend to commit wrongful gain by this transaction and he entered in this fraudulent agreement with the complainant. There is no doubt that he is liable to return the amount received from the complainant Rs. 13,50,000/- as per the provisions of law and evidence. It is proved that the complainant who suffered a huge mental agony, financial loss and other inconvenience due to the unfair trade practice and the deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
6. We find that to allow this complaint is highly necessary for the interest of justice. There is no doubt that the opposite party who committed gross negligence and cheating with a criminal intention.
7. In the result, this complaint is allowed and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 13,50,000/- (Thirteen lakhs fifty thousand) only with 12% interest from the date of the agreement on 7.8.2008 till the date of the payment to the complainant. This Commission is not ordering the opposite party to pay any amount Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, hardships and other financial loss sustained by the complainant under the head of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the provisions of C.P. Act. The opposite party is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the cost to the complainant by the opposite party accordingly.
8. The complainant is directed to comply this order within 15 days after the receipt of the copy of the judgment failing which the opposite party is liable for punishment 3years imprisonment and fine
Rs. 10,000/- as per the Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The complainant have the liberty to proceed against the opposite party under section 25 of the C.P. Act for the Revenue Recovery proceedings.
This complaint disposed accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON. MEMBER
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATH ALI :HON. PRESIDENT
APPENDIX
Witnesses on the part of the Complainant
Pw1: Complainant, M.P. Abraham
Exhibits produced by the Complainant. : P1 to P5
P1: Agreement executed between the M.P. Abraham represented
by his agent Thomas Varghese and the opposite party John C.P.
P2: Intimation sent by the complainant to the opposite party
P3: Intimation sent by the complainant to the opposite party
P4: Copy of the F.I.R.
Witness on the part of the Opposite party: Nil
Exhibits produced by Opposite party : Nil
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON. MEMBER,
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATH ALI : HON. PRESIDENT
st
