Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/80/2014

The Executive Engineer & ADO Coimabatore Housing Unit ,TNHB - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.Pradeepan & another - Opp.Party(s)

Yuvakumar

12 Jan 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :   HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI                   PRESIDENT  

                                                           THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                                               JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                           TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                    MEMBER                                                                                   

F.A.NO.80/2014

(Against the order in CC.No.372/2011, dated 23.07.2012 on the file of DCDRF, Coimbatore)

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF JANUARY 2015

The Executive Engineer & ADO

Coimbatore Housing Unit,                                                                                 Mr.V.Yuvakumar

Tamilnadu Housing Board,                                                                          Counsel for the Appellant /

Coimbatore 641 012.                                                                                                             Opposite party

-vs-

1.  M.Pradeepan,

     S/o.R.Mariyaraj                                                                                         1^st Respondent/ Complainant

                                                                                                                                   Called absent

2.  R.Mariyaaraj,

     39-A, (Old No.56, 57) Balan Nagar,                 2^nd Respondent /2^nd  Complainant

     Peelamedu post,                                                   In person

     Coimbatore 641 014.

          The Respondents are the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief.  The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.372/2011, dated 23.07.2012.     

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.12.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The opposite party is the appellant.

2.       The complainants on the basis of newspaper advertisement applied for purchase  of  house  under self finance scheme on payment of 5% of the purchase amount of Rs.1,10,280/- under the impression that the balance amount to be paid in 4 instalments within a year from the date of allotment and subsequently on receiving allotment letter and found that the house was facing south and the installments are to be paid only in two instead of four and he requested for refund of advance amount paid for which the opposite party refunded only a sum of Rs.55,150/- 50% of the advance amount paid and thereby alleging unfair trade practice, the consumer complaint came to be filed.

3.       The opposite party denying the allegation contended that as per the terms and conditions if the entire amount were not paid within the stipulated period 50% of the advance money paid would be forfeited and accordingly 50% amount alone was paid and thereby there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part.

4.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party filed this appeal contending that the District Forum allowed the complaint erroneously without taking into consideration of the contentions of the appellant acted on the basis of rules and terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment order as per the rules of Board since the complainant failed to pay the amount in stipulated period that only 50% of the advance amount was paid as refund.

5.       We have heard both sides arguments, contentions and carefully considered the materials in this regard.  It is not in dispute that the complainant applied for the purchase of house under the self finance scheme as per the  advertisement  under  Ex.A1  for  the  cost  of  Rs.22,05,600/-  as per  Ex.A3 and  also  paid  a sum  of Rs.1,10,280/- as 5% of the cost and on the basis of paper publication in Dinamalar marked as Ex.A1 in which it is mentioned that the amount shall be payable in 4 installments after allotment.  But as per the allotment letter under Ex.A3 we find 50% of the cost of Rs.11,02,800/- to be paid as on 28.2.2011 and another 45% of the amount of Rs.9,92,520/- to be paid on or before 31.03.2011 with default interest in case of late payment otherwise allotment will be cancelled and 50% of the amount already remitted by the allottee to be forfeited.  According to this allotment letter it is clear that the installments are reduced to two instead of four as per the news items in paper publication under Ex.A1 which is not denied by the appellant / opposite party and thereby it is clear that the conditions are contra to the earlier publication which would amount to unfair trade practice.  Further the complainant immediately on seeing the house allotted to him not satisfied having south face entrance and is not in a position to pay the entire amount in two installments as excepted to be paid in 4 installments he addressed for refund of advance amount in Ex.B2 which was received on 18.4.2011 by the opposite party by mentioning that as per the paper advertisements the installments to be paid in 4 installments and considered the same for applying for the house.  But as per the allotment letter as he was requested to pay entire amount in 2 installments and the house was facing south direction which is not auspicious for him and thereby he requested for refund and inspite of the same as per the letter Ex.B4 requesting for remaining refund amount without considering it or giving reply for the same explaining the terms and conditions for forfeiture of 50% amount the opposite party kept quiet would amount to deficiency of service and the procedure adopted in this case is against the terms and as per advertisement Ex.A1 would amount to unfair trade practice and thereby the District Forum considered all the relevant materials came to proper conclusion by allowing the complaint accepting the contentions of the complainant with which finding we find no error or infirmity including the quantum of compensation as ordered it is only for Rs.5,000/- alone and thereby we find no merits in this appeal and the appeal is to be dismissed. accordingly

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC.No.372/2011, dated 23.07.2012.

          The opposite party is directed to comply the District Forum’s order within 6 weeks from the date of this order.

          No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                   A.K.ANNAMALAI                          R.REGUPATHI

    MEMBER                              (J) MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

INDEX/ YES/ NO

VL/PJM/D;/CONSUMER