Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/865/2011

P.Kulanthai Theras - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.Shanmugam & 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

K.Balaji

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                           Present: Thiru J. Jayaram,                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                         Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                           MEMBER

F.A. No. 865 / 2011

                      (Against the Order in C.C. No. 303 / 2009, dated 06-06-2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

Dated this the 17^th day of AUGUST, 2015

R. Kulandai Theras,                                      ]

W/o. P. Rajendran,                                       ]

Door No.2-854,                                            ]

J.J. Nagar, 2^nd Street,                                  ]

Veerapandi,                                                 ]  ..  Appellant /

Thirupur – 641 605                                      ]                2^nd Complainant

                   Vs.

1. Mr. N. Shanmugam,                                 ]

    S/o Nachimuthu,                                      ]

    Jaisakthi Nagar (Proprietor),                    ]

    35-A, Kumar Nagar East 2^nd Street,          ]

    Thirupur – 641 603.                                  ]

]

2. Mr. M. Shankar,                                       ]

    S/o Mr. Manickam,                                   ]

    Jaisakthi Nagar (Agent),                           ]

    Door No.5-7, Appachi Nagar                   ]

    Main Road, 2^nd Street,                              ]  .. Respondents /

    Kongu Nagar,                                           ]         Opposite Parties

    Thirupur – 641 607                                   ]

]

3. Ms. X. Jenitha Mary,                                ]

    W/o Saviour,                                            ]

    Door No.2-854,                                        ]

    J.J. Nagar 2^nd Street,                                ]

    Veerapandi,                                             ]  ..  3^rd Respondent /

    Thirupur – 641 605                                   ]         1^st Complainant

            This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 22-07-2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for Appellant:     -        Mr. K. Balaji

Counsel for 1^st Respondent:      -        Mr. V.S. Senthil Kumar

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent:      -        Pub. Called absent

Counsel for 3^rd Respondent:      -        Served, called absent

J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

             This appeal is filed by the second complainant against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 303 / 2009, dated  06-06-2011, dismissing the complaint against the 2^nd complainant / appellant.

             The case of the complainant is that the 1^st and 2^nd complainants were enrolled in the Housing Scheme launched by the 1^st opposite party, where the 2^nd opposite party served as agent. The 2^nd complainant paid Rs.7,600/- to one Camilhasini towards 8 instalments already paid by Camilhasini to the opposite parties, and also paid the dues for 12 months, totaling Rs.11,400/- to the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party; but the opposite parties did not execute the sale deed in favour of the 1^st and 2^nd complainants, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  

2.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint in respect of the 1^st complainant and dismissed the complaint as against the 2^nd complainant. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the 2^nd complainant has preferred this appeal.

3.       On perusing the records and considering the evidence, we come to know that the 2^nd complainant / appellant has made payment of Rs.11,400/- to the opposite parties due to be paid by the enrolled person by name Camilhasini on the assurance given by the opposite parties that they will allot the plot to the appellant / 2^nd complainant on payment of dues on behalf of Camilhasini and the appellant paid the amount on her own, but the opposite parties continued to issue receipts in the name of the above Camilhasini.

4.       It is pertinent to note that the payment of instalments and the dues payable by Camilhasini were paid by the 2^nd complainant, and issue of receipts in the name of Camilhasini have not been denied by the opposite parties.

5.       The District Forum has held that there is no agreement between the opposite parties and the appellant / 2^nd complainant and that the 2^nd complainant has not produced evidence for having obtained consent or permission from Camilhasini.

6.       It is seen that the father of Camilhasini filed an affidavit / Ex.A19 as an additional document swearing that he paid instalments to the opposite parties in the name of his daughter Camilhasini and that he is the beneficiary and that he has no objection for executing the sale deed by the opposite parties in favour of the 2^nd complainant / appellant. 

7.       On consideration of the entire materials on record, we find that the 2^nd complainant had paid the amount Rs.7,600/- to Camilhasini which had been paid by Camilhasini to the opposite parties, and also cleared the entire dues of Rs.11,400/- to the opposite parties; but however the 2^nd complainant failed to obtain anything in writing from her to the effect that she had paid the money and as contended by the appellant / 2^nd complainant, the subsequent receipts were issued in the name of Camilhasini. It is found that the complainants and Camilhasini are poor people who do not know the formalities and technicalities, and they have acted in mutual good faith. Too much technicalities will lead to injustice and so in the background of the case, we have to act on equity to meet the ends of justice.

  8.       Therefore, we hold that the 2^nd complainant / appellant is entitled to get the sale deed of the plot executed in her favour which would have been allotted to Camilhasini, and that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in this regard. 

9.       In the result, the appeal is allowed in part setting aside the order of the District Forum as against the appellant / 2^nd complainant, and the 1^st opposite party is directed to execute the sale deed of the plot, ear-marked for allotting to Camilhasini, in favour of the appellant / 2^nd complainant and to pay costs of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant / complainant.

10.     No relief is sought as against the 2^nd opposite party, and the complaint is dismissed as against the 2^nd opposite party.

11.     Time for compliance: Two Months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

P. BAKIYAVATHI                                         J. JAYARAM           

       MEMBER                                 PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER