Date of Filing      : 21.04.2023

                                                                                                                                     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.41/2023

THIS MONDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

Mr.S.Mohan,

S/o.Mr.K.S.T.Sivaraman,

No.40, 1^st Main,

4^th Cross, Maruthi Nagar,

Madiwala,

Bangalore 560 068.                                                                                 ……Complainant.

                                                                           //Vs//

Manju Groups,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

Registered office No.8/57,

Sapthaswara Apartments,

Flat No.I &J, 1^st Avenue, Ashok Nagar,

Chennai - 600 083.                                                                                 …..Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                       :   Mrs.K.Kalpana, 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 Mrs.K.Kalpana, 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 refund Rs.11,78,000/- with 5% interest for 7 years due to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.17,500/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. It was the case of the complainant that by seeing the advertisement which was telecasted in Manju groups you tube channel and Television channel had impressed him in lot.  When the complainant approached the opposite party they promised to construct 3000 houses, 20 plus amenities, 100 plus commercials and bus shuttle services and as a whole it will be like a mini township with gated community etc.  Further the opposite party assured to purchase the vacant land which was situated inside the Swarnadhara project that the land amount will increase in couple of years.  The complainant totally believed the opposite party and invested very huge amount. The complainant has paid Rs.3,000/- as cash and Rs.47,000/- as cheque for the project Swaranadhara situated in Thirunindravur and on same day i.e. on 24.07.2016 paid a sum of Rs.4,53,000/- as cheque to the opposite party. For registration as well for the occupancy for plot No.516 (1033sq.ft) and 517/1030sqft) in all totally measuring 2063 square feet, Panchatyat approved project for Rs.11,78,000/-. The complainant was forced by the employee to pay Rs.6,75,000/- immediately as there was lot of members ready payment. The complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.6,75,000/- according to the demand of the opposite party on 25.07.2016 but the receipt was given on 27.07.2016. Further on 24.02.2018 the opposite party send a letter stating that the Swarnadhara Grand City project was approved vide DTCP No.26(R)/2018 and also to remit the balance consideration along with approval fees, registration expenses/stamp duty, applicable taxes etc., on or before 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter and ensure to register the property at the earliest. The complainant states that he questioned the opposite party to complete the project so that he will proceed with the registration.  The opposite party replied that they have invested 2crores to get approval for DTCP as they don’t have monetary flow and again they requested for time of 6 months. The complainant accepted and believed the assurance given by the opposite party but till now there was no such constructions done by the opposite party in the said land. The complainant wasted his money, time and life for past 7 years paying interest to the private mortgagers. The complainant gave a complaint to Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority on 2019 and received one of the notice on 10.03.2020 and the case was transferred to Chennai District Legal Work Commission group on 2020 and received one of the notice on 04.08.2021 and action was taken from the concern department but no proper response was given by the opposite party. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to refund the total amount of Rs.11,78,000/- with 5% interest for 7 years and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.17,500/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

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 approached them for purchase of a plot to put up a house and agreed to pay the amounts towards the purchase of the plot.  After considering the terms of the complainant the opposite party had in turn suggested a suitable plot in the project “Swarnagandha Grand City”. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.11,78,000/- on 24.06.2016 and 25.06.2016.  The complainant had entered into a client enrolment Form/Contract with the opposite party on 24.07.2016 in Sr.No.A1705 &A1706. As per the direction of Hon’ble High Court in curtailing selling of unapproved DTCP land, the opposite party had approached the DTCP Officials for the approval of the project “Swarnagandha Grand City’ in and by which the same was granted in DTCP No.26(R)/2018 after a period of 2 years. It was submitted that they had further contacted the complainant seeking for the charges incurred for the approval wherein the complainant had failed to remit the charges. Though the opposite party had contacted the complainant on several occasions, the same fell into the deaf ears of the complainant. Complaint was not maintainable for the fact that the same was barred by principles of limitation. The opposite party had suffered huge loss on account of blocking a plot for the complainant and had missed several prospective purchasers and therefore the complainant was liable to compensate the loss caused to the opposite party. As per client enrolment form with the complainant herein on 24.07.2016 in Sr.No.A1705 & A1706 it was agreed between both parties that any disputes arouse has to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator, under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in Chennai and therefore the present complaint was invalid in the eye of law. As per the client enrolment form it was specifically stated that expenses on Governmental approvals has to be borne by the complainant.  It was the complainant who had violated the assurance in not remitting the charges of approval and thereby the opposite party could not complete the registration and suffered heavy loss and hardship due to the Act of complainant.  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.A9 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. Aadhar card of the complainant was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Catalogs given by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Payment receipt given by opposite party to the complainant dated 24.07.2016 was marked as Ex.A3;
4.  Cash deposit paid by the complainant dated 25.07.2016  was marked as Ex.A4 ;
5. Payment receipt given by the opposite party to the complainant dated 27.07.2016was marked as Ex.A5;
6. Opposite party request letter for payment of balance amount dated 24.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A6;
7. Request letter for pending payment from opposite party dated 23.09.2019 was marked as Ex.A7;
8. Notice issued by the Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority to the complainant dated 10.03.2020 was marked as Ex.A8;
9. Notice issued by the Chennai District Legal Work Commission group to the complainant dated 04.08.2021 was marked as Ex.A9;

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

10. Client enrolment Form dated 24.07.2016 was marked as Ex.B1;
11. Client enrolment Form dated 24.07.2016 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 was barred by limitation.  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 to be filed 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 is 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.  Further, it is argued that the opposite party failed to get approval and to get 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.A3 to Ex.A5 in proof of payments made to them.  Thus totally it is seen that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.11,78,000/- to the opposite party towards purchase of plots.  Ex.B1 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. Also no document filed by opposite party requesting complainant to pay the approval charges for getting the land registered.  No proof filed that complainant denied for the same.  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 was 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 and when the same is not done for an prolonged period for 7 years for no reason, the same clearly amounts to deficiency in service. The only reason we could assume is that as the land cost got escalated the opposite party deny Registration.  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.1,00,000/- 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.11,78,000/-(Rupees eleven lakhs seventy eight 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh 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