Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/283/2006

S.Rajeshwari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Johnson Tharian - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ganesan

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  28.04.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :  05.09.2017

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.283/2006

TUESDAY THIS 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

 

S. Rajeswari,

D/o. D.Sundararaman,

31/5, Mambalam High Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

Now residing at

No.27/10,  Q3, Dr. Subbarayan Nagar,

4^th Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai -24.             .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

 

The Johnson Tharian,

S/o. K.G.Tharian,

No.3, First Cross Street,

United India Colony,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai 600 024.                                                .. Opposite party.

 

Counsel for Complainant          :    Mrs. K. Ganesan    

Counsel for opposite party       :    M/s. K.P.Kiranrao     

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to repair the works and rectification of defects  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- being compensation  for mental agony to the complainant.

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

         The complainant submit that  he has purchased two flats G3 and G4 measuring total extent of 1200 sq. ft. for total consideration of Rs.16,16,615/-.   Further the complainant state that the opposite party without completing the construction given possession of the property.  Thereafter attended some work.   The opposite party inspite of repeated demands and requests has not carried out the following works.

1. Provision of ladders for both blocks to the overhead tanks.
2. Coverage of EB main board.
3. Provision of separate overhead tank for each block and pipe connection from the bore well and also to all the flats. 

 

Providing gate for borewell motor room.

 

Removal of sludge from the bore for free flow of water.

4. Usage of main entrance to all the residents.
5. Provision for parking the vehicles in front edge.
6. Removal of unwanted materials stored on the western area of the premises.
7. For the A Block, all check valves to be replaced for easy operation.
8. Removal of additional overhead tank constructed in the second floor.
9. Reconciliation of undivided share of land for all the flat owners.

 

Further the  complainant state that Even though the possession of the said flat has been handed over to the complainant in May 2004. The opposite party also extended the service line from G3 to G4 without providing a separate Electricity Act.    The complainant further state that  On 1.5.2004 when the opposite party delivered the flat to the complainant without completing various works and on complainant noticed development of cracks, heavy dampness and seepage during heavy downpour in 2005 and on 25.7.2005 when the complainant sent letter to the opposite party and on 25.8.2005 when the opposite party sent a reply to the complainant’s letter dated 25.7.2005 and 9.3.2006 when the complainant pointed out various defects and deficiency of service and on 7.4.2006 when the opposite party sent a reply stating that he will rectify the defects and thereafter the opposite party failed and neglected to fulfil the legitimate demands of the complainant.      As such the act of the opposite party clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party    are as follows:

        The opposite party denies each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   the opposite party state that the complainant was very well aware of the fact that the entire construction was completed  in the year 1997 itself and after inspecting the flats along with her engineer and satisfying herself with the quality of construction and the completion of construction in all respects  she had offered and agreed to purchase the same from the opposite party.   Further the opposite party denies the allegation that the flats G3 and G4 were also constructed with poor and substandard quality of materials and the walls developed cracks.     The opposite party also state that the complainant has not paid the necessary charges for obtaining the electricity meter and the security deposit has been paid by the opposite party himself.  The opposite party submit that there was three phase connection already provided to the complainant’s flat at the time of registration.    It is denied that several cracks developed in the entire walls.   The opposite party denies the allegation that flooring tiles laid by the opposite party are of cheaper quality and most of the tiles are coming out from the floor.   The entire construction is concrete column construction and as such is very strong.   The opposite party states that any damage to the walls or tiles must have been due to natural wear and tear and due to poor maintenance by the complainant and her family members.  With regard to allegation of usage of main entrance to all the residents the opposite party reiterates that a main entrance has been provided and is used by all the flat owners.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 marked on the side of the opposite party.  

4.   The point for the consideration is:  

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to have the repair works

    and rectification of defects as prayed for ?

 

         2. Whether the complainant is entitled  to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-

             towards mental agony with cost as prayed for?

 

5. POINTS 1 & 2 :-

        The learned counsel for the complainant contended that he has purchased two flats G3 and G4 measuring total extent of 1200 sq. ft. for total consideration of Rs.16,16,615/- is admitted.  It is also not denied that the complainant paid entire sale consideration.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party without completing the construction given possession of the property.  Thereafter attended some work.   The opposite party inspite of repeated demands and requests has not carried out the following works.

10. Provision of ladders for both blocks to the overhead tanks.
11. Coverage of EB main board.
12. Provision of separate overhead tank for each block and pipe connection from the bore well and also to all the flats. 

 

Providing gate for borewell motor room.

 

Removal of sludge from the bore for free flow of water.

13. Usage of main entrance to all the residents.
14. Provision for parking the vehicles in front edge.
15. Removal of unwanted materials stored on the western area of the premises.
16. For the A Block, all check valves to be replaced for easy operation.
17. Removal of additional overhead tank constructed in the second floor.
18. Reconciliation of undivided share of land for all the flat owners.

 

But on a careful perusal of the Advocate Commissioner Report there is no such work pending.Even though the objection to the Commissioner report filed by the complainant miserably failed to produce atleast photographs showing the said deficienciesafter Advocate Commissioner’s visits.Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that admittedly two flats i.e. G3 and G4 purchased by the complainant but the opposite party provided only one electricity connection.The opposite party admitted that he has not provided two electricity connection one connection for each flats.Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that there is no provision of ladders for both blocks which is against the terms and conditions of the agreementand no coverage to E.B. main board.It is further contended that the provision of separate overhead tank for each block and pipe connection also against the terms of agreement.Further the deficiency alleged related to removal of sludge usage of main entrance;provision for parking the vehicle; removal of unwanted materials etc. are not covered under the agreement.

6.  

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite party is directed to provide separate three phase E.B. connection and free usage of main entrance front gate within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards E.B. connection and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)  and cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

          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 the  5^th    day  of  September  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 4.2.2004    - Copy of Sale deed.

Ex.A2- 10.4.2000  - Copy of letter from Dy. Secretary to Member, CMDA.

Ex.A3- 3.2.2005    - Copy of Estimate for repair for Flat No.G-3.

Ex.A4- 10.2.2005  - Copy of Chennai Corp. revenue tax receipt

Ex.A5- 15.2.2005  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A6- 29.3.2005  - Copy of SRM Colour lab receipt.

Ex.A7- 18.5.2005  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A8- 9.6.2005    - Copy of reply notice.

Ex.A9- 27.8.2005  - Copy of letter from Sriram Flat owners Association.

Ex.A10- 9.3.2006  - Copy of letter from the complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.A11- 7.4.2006  - Copy of letter from the opposite party.

Ex.A12-       -       - Photographs.

Ex.A13 31.7.2003 - Copy of agreement of sale of undivided share of land.

 

Opposite party’s side document: -  

Ex.B1- 21.8.1995  - Copy of challan for remittance.

Ex.B2- 22.8.1995  - Copy of Building permit issued by Corporation of Chennai.

Ex.B3- 11.11.1997         - Copy of property tax assessment.

Ex.B4- 1.8.1998    - Copy of rental agreement.

Ex.B5- 15.3.1999  - Copy of letter from CMDA to opposite party.

Ex.B6- 27.5.1997  - Copy of Ack. issued by CMDA to opposite party .

Ex.B7- 31.10.2000         - Copy of receipt.

Ex.B8- 27.12.2000         - Copy of receipt.

Ex.B9-         -       - Copy of drawing showing the main gate.

Ex.B10- 5.2.2004  - Copy of counter foil.

Ex.B11- 6.2.2004  - Copy of Counter foil.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.