Date of Complaint : 23.09.2014
Date of Order : 20.01.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 400 / 2014
THIS WEDNESDAY 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016
Mr.S.Alagarsamy,
Plot No.30, and Door No.11,
First Main Road,
Sai Nagar,
Annexure,
Virugambakkam Post (North),
Chennai 600 092. .. Complainant.
- Vs-
K.K. Empire Homes Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, 147, Sri Devi Garden Main Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. .. Opposite party. | | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : M/s. K.M. Venugopal & another
For the opposite party : Mr. V. Martin Kerwin & Exparte
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
1. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.7,87,600/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
2. Though the opposite party though appeared through counsel in beginning of this proceedings, but subsequently not filed written version and did not file any written version. Hence the opposite party were set exparte on 10.4.2015.
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant counsel.
4. The complainant contented that he is a retired foreman worked in the office of the Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government of Tamil Nadu. After the death of his daughter he and his wife had intention to change the dwelling place from the busiest Chennai to far away place near sea shore. During the time the opposite party approached through their representative with necessary photograph of lay out and canvassed to the complainant. Based on their attractive presentation and their past performance in the real estate field the complainant booked house flats No.21 & 22 in survey No.148/12 and 148/13 in the opposite party’s lay out in phase No.3 in the name and style of Emerald Village at Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram measuring an extent of 3600 sq.ft. The total consideration of the flats is Rs.17,64,000/-. When the complainant requested the copy of the title deeds the opposite party demanded to pay the advance amount and as such he paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque as advance amount. The legal department of the opposite party satisfied the complainant with reference to the title deeds by concealing material facts relating the property. However believing the words of the opposite party he paid further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque on 4.11.2013 and another Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque on 4.11.2013 in the name of Emerald for which receipt was issued by the opposite party. He also paid further a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- through cheque on 16.11.2013 for which no receipt was received. Apart from that the opposite party collected a sum of Rs.67,600/- as cash as stamp duty for registration and other expenses, for which no receipt was issued.
5. The complainant further contended that he requested the opposite party to verify the original document in the presence of the advocate. On perusal of document his advocate advised him not to purchase the flats since he did not satisfy the legal requirements with regard to the property at plot No.21 & 22. Hence the opposite party changed the property and offered plots at No.14 & 15. On perusal of the documents it was found that the registered power of attorney executed by the land owners was not correct. Hence his advocate advised not to purchase the alternative plots also. Hence he issued notice to the opposite party that he intend not to purchase the plots due to non production of correct and relevant documents and to refund the amount paid by him along with compensation. The same was received by the opposite party but they failed to send any reply. Hence the complainant filed the above complaint for refund of a sum of Rs.7,87,600/ along with interest and compensation and cost of the compliant.
6. Ex.A1 in the layout sketch of the opposite party project. Since the complainant intended to purchase two plots from the opposite party, The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 19.9.2013 through cheque and also paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 4.11.2013 through two cheques and also paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- during November 2013. The above payment of Rs.6,00,000/- as well as Rs.1,20,000/- is evidenced through Ex.A5, Ex.A6, & Ex.A7.
7. The grievance of the complainant in the complaint is that the opposite party had not submitted the correct and relevant documents for the booking plots and also the deed of power of attorney i.e. Ex.A2 was not perfect to satisfy the legal requirements with regard to the property. As such he intended to cancel the purchase of the above plots and sought for refund of the amount paid by him.
8. First of all it is the duty of the vendor to furnish the relevant and required documents relating to the property to the purchaser in order to fulfill the legal requirements. But in this case the opposite party failed to furnish the correct documents relating to the property as required by the advocate of the complainant. On perusal of Ex.A2 i.e. the copy of deed of power of attorney also it reveals that the schedule of property is not mentioned and as such the doubt caused to the complainant relating to the complaint mentioned property is acceptable. As such the production of faulted documents of title after receipt of above said huge amount by the opposite party shows their deficiency in service. Further the complainant also sent legal notice to the opposite party expressing his grievance and also seeking refund of the amount paid by him which was received by the opposite party but they failed to send any reply the same is also evidenced through Ex.A3 & Ex.A4.
9. Hence the grievance of the complainant that since the opposite party did not produced the correct and relevant documents as required by his advocate he sought for refund of the amount paid by him is acceptable. The documents filed by the complainant proves that he had paid a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- to the opposite party. The complainant also contended that he had paid a sum of Rs.67,600/- to the opposite party by cash as stamp duty for registration and other expenses for which no receipt was issued by the opposite party. But the opposite party did not sent any reply objecting the receipt of sum of Rs.67,600/-. The complainant apart from claiming a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- also claimed Rs.67,600/- in the complaint. But on perusing the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party it is stated that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the opposite party in the month of November 2013. Hence it is reveals that the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards the stamp duty and registration charges.
10. From the above facts and circumstances it is clear that the opposite party committed deficiency of service and as such the refund of amount sought for by the complainant is justifiable. Moreover the opposite party had utilized the complainants money for commercial purpose and benefited out of it and as such the opposite party is also liable to pay interest on the said amount.
11. The contention of the complainant that since he had invested his huge amount of money with the opposite party he could not buy alternative plots somewhere else, since the market value of the plots have been increased and as such he incurred monetary loss as well as mental agony is acceptable. Hence the opposite party is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for mental agony.
12. Further the opposite party though appeared through counsel in beginning of this proceedings, but subsequently not filed written version and not contested the case as such they remain set exparte in this proceedings.
13. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/-+ Rs.2,00,000/- +Rs.2,00,000/ + Rs.1,20,000 + Rs.60,000/-) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of legal notice i.e. 23.6.2014 and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and also sum of Rs.2,500/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. Since the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant we are inclined to grant just and reasonable compensation as stated above.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 23.6.2014 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation towards mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) as cost of litigation to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the compensation amount (Rs.25,000/) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order passed till the date of realization.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 20th day of January 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- - - Copy of Layout sketch in Phase-III, Emerald Village,
Ex.A2- 4.10.2013 - Copy of the Deed of Power of Attorney.
Ex.A3- 23.6.2014 - Copy of the Advocate Notice with Ack. Card.
Ex.A4- 2.9.2014 - Copy of the legal notice with Ack. Card.
Ex.A5- 23.9.2013 - Copy of the Receipt for Rs.2,00,000/-
Ex.A6- 4.11.2013 - Copy of the receipt for Rs.6,00,000/-
Ex.A7- - - Copy of Bank Statement.
Opposite party’s side documents: -
.. Nil .. (exparte)
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
