Date of Filing      : 22.02.2023

                                                                                                                                     Date of Disposal : 11.09.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                        .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR., B.Sc., BL.,                                                                           …….MEMBER-I

CC. No.32/2023

THIS MONDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

Mr.Anil Solomon,

C/o.Sterling,

No.14, Kandasamy Nagar,

Flat No.1E 404 E Block 4^th Floor,

Optima Upgrade, Paruthipattu,

Kamarajar Nagar,

Thiruvallur -600 071.                                                                                ……Complainant. 

                                                                                 //Vs//

The Managing Director,

Manju Groups,

No.8/57 Sabda Swara Apartments,

1^st Avenue, Ashok Nagar,

Chennai - 600 083.                                                                                 …..Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                      :   Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                                   :   Mr.R.Gunasekaran, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 07.09.2023 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan, counsel for the complainant and Mr.R.Gunasekaran, counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of  both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in not registering the plot booked by the complainant even after receipt of the cost of the plot along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to repay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as damage for every years from 2016 till date and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. It was the case of the complainant that during the year 2016 he came to know about the opposite party’s project by name Swarnadhara layout at Melakondaiyur Village near Pakkam, Thiruvallur Taluk and District. The complainant on coming to know about the project he visited opposite party Layout office and enquired about the price and mode of payment for the purchase of plots in the site office and decided to purchase plot No.120 and 121 measuring 616 square feet each. Sale consideration for each plot was fixed at Rs.3,08,000/- and the complainant on 05.06.2016 paid an advance of Rs.50,000/- for each plot.  It was agreed to pay the balance amount within 6 months on condition that opposite party should get appropriate approval from the Local Administrative Authority and the Directorate of Town and Country Planning.  Complainant again on 18.07.2016 made further payment of Rs.1,50,000/- and assured to make the balance payment at the time of registration of the plots.  In spite of repeated demands and request, the opposite party has not chosen to come forward to receive the balance sale consideration and to register the plots in the name of complainant. Opposite party was not in a position to get approval and to complete the Registration. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to repay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as damage for every year from 2016 till date and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

3. The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- for each plot on 05.06.2016 and also Rs.1,50,000/- on 18.07.2016 but denied the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- alleged to have paid on 06.12.2022.  Due to change in the Government policy in getting approval from the local body and Directorate of Town and Country Planning approval was delayed and the same was informed to the complainant and also advised to pay the cost for getting approval but he failed to pay the cost.  As per the client enrolment form agreement, any dispute between the parties shall be referred to Arbitration.  Hence the complainant approaching this Commission was without jurisdiction. Complaint filed by the complainant was barred by limitation as per section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were submitted.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit and documents marked as Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were submitted.

5. Points for consideration:

1. Whether the complaint as filed was barred by limitation?
2. Whether the act of opposite party in not registering the plot booked by the complainant even after receipt of the cost of the plot amounts to deficiency in service and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?
3. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of their contentions;

1. Payment receipt dated 05.06.2016 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Payment receipt dated 05.06.2016 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Payment receipt dated 18.07.2016 was marked as Ex.A3;
4.  Bank Statements were marked as Ex.A4 to Ex.A6;
5. Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 06.12.2022 was marked as Ex.A7;
6. Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A8;

The following documents were filed on the side of opposite party in proof of their defence;

7. Client enrolment Form dated 05.06.2016 was marked as Ex.B1;
8. Allotment Agreement dated 12.02.2018 was marked as Ex.B2;

6. It is contended primarily by the opposite party that the complaint was filed belatedly as the booking was made by the complainant during 2016 and that the present complaint was filed after a period of 7 years and hence the complaint barred by limitation.  However, it is seen that miscellaneous petition in CMP.No.58/2023 has been filed by the complainant to condone the delay of 1680 days, notice has been ordered and after due consideration the delay has been condoned and then the complaint was taken on file.  Further, as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 & 2019, in matters relating to plot or construction, the limitation is considered to continue until the delivery of plot or flat has been made.  In the present case though the plot was booked in the year 2016 till date no delivery was given by the opposite party.  Hence, it is to be construed that the complaint is having a continuous cause of action and hence not barred by limitation.  Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that the complaint as filed is well within the period of limitation. This point answered accordingly.

Point No.2:-

7. It is argued by the counsel for the complainant that the he had made payments for the purchase of the plots in the year 2016 as requested by the opposite party for which due receipts were issued by them.  However, it is argued that the opposite party failed to get approval and to register the plots in the name of complainant as promised and thus he argued that opposite party had committed deficiency in service and sought for refund of the amount along with compensation.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party contested the case stating that due to change in the Government Policies for getting approvals registration could not be completed in time.  Further he also argued that as the complainant refused to pay the approval charges the registration could not be made.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

9. On perusal of the pleadings and material evidence produced by both parties we could see that the complainant had filed documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 in proof of payments made to them.  Further Bank Statement showing payments to the opposite party was also filed as Ex.A4 to Ex.A6.  Thus totally it is seen that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the opposite party towards purchase of plots.  Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 was filed by the opposite party in proof of allotment of property.  However, the fact reminds that no registration in favour of complainant was done by the opposite party for the plots allotted in favour of the complainant.  The defence raised by the opposite party that as the complainant did not provide the approval charges and hence the registration was not done could not be accepted for the reason that no documents was filed by them citing the same as terms and conditions. However, under the terms and conditions it is found that the plots would be registered within 30 days from the date of booking. Further no pleadings or proof submitted by the opposite party to substantiate by which Government Policy approval got delayed for the plots.  Thus when it is even provided by the opposite party that the plots would be registered within 30 days of booking and receipt of money, when the same is not done for an prolonged period for 7 years, the same clearly amounts to deficiency in service.  Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and that the same has been successfully proved by the complainant.

Point No.3:-

10. We have held above that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service as the complainant was kept waiting for 7 long years without Registration we are of the view that they should be adequately compensated. Thus, for enjoying the complainant’s money from 2016 and causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant we award a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the opposite party as compensation along with refund of the amounts paid by the complainant with 9% interest from the date of respective payments till realization within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  We also award Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing him

a) To refund Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) the amount paid by the complainant for the purchase of the plot with 9% interest from the date of respective payments till realization within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant; 

c) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, an enhanced interest at the rate of 12% will be applicable on the amounts from the respective date of payments.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 11^th day of September 2023.

        -Sd-                                                                                                                        -Sd- 

 MEMBER-I                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

     -Sd-                                                                                                                        -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                           PRESIDENT