Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

54/2014

S.Rajasimha, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohammad Valiyullah,The Builder, - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

06 Dec 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  17.03.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  06.12.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 06^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.54/2014

 

 

Mr.S.Rajasimha,

25/2, Chankrapani St Extn.,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.

                                                                                               ...  Complainant

      ..Vs..

 

 

Mr.Mohammed Valiyullah

The Builder,

Sameer Constructions,

25/B- First floor, Wathucotton  street, Periamet,

Chennai – 600 003.                                                           …  Opposite party

 

 

Date of complaint                                 : 21.03.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M/s. A.Bala Singh Ramanujam,

                                                                    P.Mahenderchand, B.Pannalal Jain

 

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to pay a sum  of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for the purchase of a flat S.F.1 being constructed at Iyyappanthangal wide registered sale deed No.2767 dated  18.03.2013. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- for the purchase of the above said flat  mobilizing funds by surrendering his senior citizen fixed deposit  amount. The opposite party promised that the flat would be completed within 3 months from the date of registration. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.75,000/-  on 12.03.2013 for electricity connection.  However the opposite party had not completed the construction and handed over the flat and such act the opposite party caused mental agony to the complainant. Therefore the complainant filed his complaint claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh for causing mental agony to him and also to pay interest on the amount of Rs.13,90,000/-  paid by him to the opposite party with cost of the complaint and render justice.     

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

           The complainant is the husband of the Land Lord who gave power of attorney and entered joint venture agreement. The complainant entered agreement 14.02.2013 to purchase the flat No.S-2. The opposite party agreed to construct the said flat for a sum of Rs.35,32,000/- in the second floor and the complainant also agreed for the same. Since, the land being the complainant’s wife, he adjusted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to the land lady. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.12,90,000/- towards part amount of the sale consideration. After adjusting the above said two amounts the complainant is liable to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.22,42,000/-.

          3. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- on 12.03.2013  for obtaining electricity connection is absolutely false. The opposite party sold the other two flats G-1 & F-1 respectively to his buyers Shiva Kumar and Thangamalar and they have been put in possession in the year 2013 itself. Despite of the request made by this opposite party, the complainant did not come forward to pay the balance amount and approached this Forum behind his back. Even now the complainant  pay’s the balance sale consideration of Rs.22,42,000/-, he is ready to hand over the flat without lift facility. Hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant’s wife is the land lady and in her property the opposite party entered into a  joint venture agreement to construct five flats and out of the said flats both agreed to take each two flats and to share one flat equally and the complainant entered Ex.B1 dated 14.02.2013 agreement for sale undivided share of land cum-construction with the opposite party and the opposite party agreed to register 362 sq.ft UDS land in favour of the complainant and accordingly Ex.B2 sale deed dated 18.03.2013 was registered in favour of the complainant and they further agreed the land cost and construction cost for a sum of Rs.35,32,000/- and out of the said amount, the complainant also paid part amount to the  opposite party.

          6. The complainant would contend that the opposite party agreed to construct within three months and however he had not completed the flat and remain stand still and further he had paid a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- towards purchase of the flat and also paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards electricity connection and  however, he had not completed the construction and handed over the flat and hence he had filed this complaint claiming compensation for the deficiency committed by the opposite party.

          7. The opposite party would contend that the complainant purchased S-2 flat from him and for the same he had paid  a part sale consideration of Rs.12,90,000/- and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was adjusted as requested by the complainant’s wife  in respect of the 5^th flat  share and after deducting those amounts the complainant still due  to pay a sum of Rs.22,42,000/- towards part sale consideration and therefore he had not  committed any deficiency in service and on the other hand the complainant wife who stood as guarantor for her husband and committed default in payment.

          8. The complainant case is that he had paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards electricity connection charges. Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 issued for a sum of Rs.75,000/- in the name of complainant’s wife Mrs.Remyza. The said amount paid by her for obtaining EB connection for her flats. Therefore, as contended by the complainant he had paid a sum of Rs.75,000/-  for EB connection charges is not proved.

9. The complainant paid through Ex.A2 to Ex.A10 varying amounts for a  total sum of Rs.14,65,000/- as against the purchase price of  the flat a sum of Rs.35,32,000/-.  However,  in the said amount of Rs. 14,65,000/- under Ex.A2, issued for Rs.25,000/- and Ex.A3 issued for Rs.50,000/- towards EB charges and under Ex.A8 issued for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards  door purchase in the name of complainant’s wife Remyza for a total sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. Hence the said amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid only by the complainant’s wife for charges in respect of her flats.  However, the receipts in Ex.A4 to Ex.A7, Ex.A9, Ex.A10 was issued in the name of the complainant for varying amounts and totally he had paid a sum of Rs.13,40,000/- only to the opposite party.  The opposite party himself agreed that he had adjusted    a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as requested by the complainant’s wife, towards payment on behalf of the complainant. Including this amount the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.18,40,000/- towards purchase of the flat and he is liable to pay  the balance  sum of Rs. 16,92,000/-

10. Absolutely there is no evidence available on behalf of the complainant  that  he is not due to pay a sum of Rs.16,92,000/-  to the opposite party and therefore the complainant is a defaulter in payment of  purchase money. A defaulter cannot allege against the opposite party that he had committed deficiency.  Therefore, considering as above, it is held that the opposite party has not committed deficiency in service to the complainant. 

11. POINT NO: 2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 06^th day of December 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 18.03.2011              Sale Deed Ex.A2 dated 08.03.2013              Receipt for Rs.25,000/- Ex.A3 dated 08.03.2013              EB Charges Ex.A4 dated 07.01.2013              Receipt for Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.A5 dated 18.03.2013              Receipt for Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.A6 dated 20.04.2013              Receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.A7 dated 03.07.2013              Receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.A8 dated 03.07.2013              Receipt for Rs.50,000/- Ex.A9 dated 05.09.2013              Receipt for Rs.90,000/- Ex.A10 dated 22.09.2013            Receipt for Rs.50,000/- Ex.A11 dated 04.11.2013            Notice Ex.A12 dated 12.11.2013           AD Card
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :   Ex.B1 dated  14.02.2013                  Agreement for sale of undivided share of land                                                          cum- construction   Ex.B2 dated 18.03.2013                   Sale deed
MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT