Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/720/2004

T.P.Sukumaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.Veera Sekharan, Proprietor, Land marvel Constructions - Opp.Party(s)

D.Sathyanarayanan

09 Nov 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   07.01.2004

                                                                        Date of Order :   09.11.2017

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.720/2004

THURSDAY THIS  9^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

Mr. T.P. Sukumaran,

S/o. Late T.Krishna Pisharedi,

S-3, Land Marvel Mercury Apts.

No.1/2 Navarathna Gardens,

Kttattuthngal, Chennai 600 097.                      Complainant

 

                                            Vs 

 

Mr. V. Veera Sekharan,

Proprietor,

Land Marvel Constructions,

No.23, New No.39, 1^st Cross Street,

Kasthurba Nagar,

Adyar, Chennai 600 020.                                Opposite party.

 

Counsel for Complainant                :   M/s. D.Satyanarayana       

Counsel for opposite party             :   M/s. K.Kumaran

 

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 directionto rectify the compliant mentioned defects and hand over the complaint mentioned documents and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.60,000/- towards delay in handing over the flats and Rs.50,000/- towards installation of lift and Rs.2,00,000/- towards withholding the documents and Rs.25,000/- towards various amenities and Rs.36,000/- towards non performance of the terms and conditionsand to pay cost of the complaint.

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

         The complainant submit that he has entered into an agreement for construction on 10.7.1995.   The opposite party executed a sale deed for the undivided share and the same day registered as document No.1306/1999.  Further the complainant state that  as per the terms and conditions opposite party agreed to complete the construction of the flat measuring 1360 sq. ft. within a stipulated period from the date of signing the construction agreement.     But the opposite party failed to hand over the possession within the agreed period.    The opposite party also has not handed over to the complainants the following documents: -

1. CMDA Approval
2. Revised original plan of entire building as per the site condition.
3. Exact plan of each and every apartment with the CMDA
4. Mutation of names in essential service like electricity and water board etc.
5. Road-Gift deed from the Corporation.
6. Drawing showing pipeline and electrical wiring for the building and for each flat.
7. The latest regularization of the building under the regularization scheme 2002 from the CMDA
8. Indemnity Certificate.

2.     Further the complainant also state that the opposite party failed to provide in common area of the building as per the agreement the following:-

1. Iron cover for the Metro water sump.
2. Handles of drainage covers.
3. Raising the portion of the wall for 5 feet on the eastern and western side of the building.
4. Removal of blockages in the TV; telephone provision.
5. Providing a hole in the kitchen slab for each apartment for the rubber tube gas connection.

Despite of repeated demands made by the complainants the opposite party failed to initiate any steps towards completion of the project.   As such the act of  the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

3.    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 submit that there was no delay in completing the construction of the flat in time, the alleged delay has not occurred due to the fault of the opposite party and the reason for such delay is only due to the complainant has not paid the construction cost to the opposite party in time as per agreement.  The opposite party further state that it is not correct to state that the flat was handed over to the complainant in an incomplete stage; but the opposite party have completed all the works in the said flat.  Even as per the conditions of agreement the complainant will accept delivery of the flat only after satisfactory completion of the construction in all respects including establishment of working electricity; water and sewerage systems that are fully functional.    The opposite party further state that  the work of the opposite party in this regard is only as a coordinator and this opposite party has done the same by giving no objections for effecting name transfer as per the construction agreement to the complainants; parent documents of the land and CMDA approval and  other relevant documents will be furnished only to the registered flat owners association and not to any individual flat owners.    Further the allegation of the complainant that as per agreement the lift would be installed in the building by 30^th April 2001 failing which the opposite party agreed to refund an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with penalty of agreed amount of Rs.25,000/- is denied as the same is not correct and in this regard it is submitted that there is no such condition in the agreement dated 13.10.2000 entered with the complainants. As regards the averments of handles for drainage covers, raising the portion of the wall for 5 feet on the eastern and western side of the building; providing a hole in the kitchen slab for each apartment for the rubber tube gas connection; removal of blockage in the TV telephone provision for each apartment there is no provision for that as per the construction agreement as such the same cannot be insisted.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed and no documents   marked on the side of the opposite party. 

5.      The points for the consideration is:  

 

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?.

 

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief of rectifying the defects alleged in the complaint and hand over the documents listed to the complaints  as prayed for?

 

3. Whether the complainants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.60,000/- towards delay in handing over the flats and Rs.50,000/- towards installation of lift and Rs.2,00,000/- towards withholding the documents and Rs.25,000/- towards various amenities and Rs.36,000/- towards non performance of the terms and conditions with cost as prayed for?

 

6.  POINTS 1 to 3:

         

          Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   The complainants has not turned up to advance any oral arguments.  Heard the opposite party counsel.  The contention of the complainant is that he has entered into an agreement for construction on 10.7.1995 as per Ex.A1.   The opposite party executed a sale deed for the undivided share and the same was registered as document No.1306/1999.  This case is filed on 7.1.2004 after taking delivery of possession of the flat  on  July 2001.   As per Consumer Protection Act 1986 such case shall be filed within the period of two years.   The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the undivided share was registered on 11.2.2001 and the completed construction of the apartments and the possession was handed over to the complainant in the month of July 2001.  After a prolonged period the complainant filed this case on 7.1.2004 proves the complaint is barred by limitation.   

7.     The learned counsel cited a decisions reported in

Supreme Court of India

Civil Appeal No.4962 of 2002

Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co.

..Vs..

National Insurance Co & Another

 

 

Civil Appeal No.6572 of 2005

Haryana Urban Development Authority

..Vs..

B.K. Sood

 

8.      The complainant pleaded in the complaint and contended in the written arguments that the opposite party handed over the possession of the apartment in complete nature.   As per the agreement Ex.A1 the opposite party shall finish the work on or before January 2001.   But the opposite party delivered the unfinished  apartment on January 2001.  But the complainants has not pleaded specifically on which date the possession was handed over;  establish that there is no delay in handing over the possession of the building.  Further the contention of the complainants raised in the written argument that the opposite party failed to provide an iron cover for metro water sump;  Handles for drainage covers; raising the portion of the wall for 5 feet on the eastern and western side of the building; removal of blockages in the T.V.; telephone provision for each apartment;  and hole in the kitchen slab for each apartment for the rubber tube gas connection are against true spirit of agreement Ex.A1.   The complainant also has not taken any steps to appoint Advocate Commissioner to inspect the building and find out such deficiency.    The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the imaginary allegation of deficiency of service are against truth as per the agreement.  The cement slab cover for the Metro water sump; Handles for drainage covers raising the portion of the wall for 5 feet  on the eastern and western side of the building; hole in the kitchen slab for each apartment for  the rubber tube gas connection, removal of blockage in the TV; telephone provision is against the agreement.  The complainant also has not proved the said allegations. Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has not handed over the original documents like CMDA approval plan;  Revised Original Plan of entire building as per site condition; exact plan of each and every apartment with CMDA/Corporation approval; latest regularization of the building under the regularization scheme 2002 from the CMDA; indemnity certificate;  etc;  but admittedly the building containing several apartments of different owners.  All the owners have not formed any association which is registered association and has not demanded such documents.   The contention of the opposite party is that all the documents copies were handed over to the respective owners at the time of entering into agreement and thereafter due perusal of title deeds and documents.   All the apartments owners entered into an agreement and due possession also handed over after execution of the respective sale deed.

9.     The contention of the opposite party is that the claim of Rs.60,000/- towards delay in handing over the possession and Rs.50,000/- towards installation of lift and Rs.25,000/- towards handing over the documents and Rs.25,000/- towards amenities and Rs.36,000/- towards non performance of the terms and conditions are against true fact and has not been proved by the complainant with proper document.    The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the imaginary false claim of the complainant under various heads is unsustainable and against true fact.   The opposite party had handed over the completed building within the reasonable time and executed due sale deed in respect of the apartment owners properly.  The complainant and other apartment owners has not created a registered association and has not claimed the original documents related to the building.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the complainants are not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and the points 1 to 3  are answered accordingly. 

             In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

            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 the9^th day  of  November  2017. 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 10.7.1995  - Copy of Agreement.

Ex.A2- 30.3.1999  - Copy of Sale Deed.

Ex.A3- 4.8.2001    - Copy of corresponding letters to Mr.Veera Sekharan

Ex.A4- 16.8.2001  - Copy of corresponding letters to Mr.Veera Sekharan

Ex.A5- 5.9.2001    - Copy of corresponding letters to Mr.Veera Sekharan

Ex.A6- 25.11.2001         - Copy of corresponding letters to Mr.Veera Sekharan

Ex.A7- 10.2.2002  - Copy of corresponding letters to Mr.Veera Sekharan

Ex.A8- 27.6.2002  - Copy of corresponding letters to Mr.Veera Sekharan

Ex.A9- 3.7.2002    - Copy of corresponding letters to Mr.Veera Sekharan

Ex.A10- 6.3.2003  - Copy of corresponding letters to Mr.Veera Sekharan

Ex.A11-12.3.2003 - Copy of corresponding letters to Mr.Veera Sekharan

Ex.A12- 15.6.2002         - Copy of received letter from M/s.Land Marvel.

Ex.A13- 28.6.2003         -  Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A14- 1.7.2003  - Copy of Ack. Card. 

 

Opposite party’s side document:         Nil 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.