Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/355/2022

Mrs. Sudha Srinivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. K.S. Suryanarayanan - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

27 Jun 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:07.09.2022

  Date of Reservation     :14.06.2023

  Date of Order              :27.06.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                   THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.355/2022

TUESDAY,THE 27^th DAY OF JUNE 2023

Mrs Sudha Srinivasalu,

Plot No.141/1, SPC-1,

Lakshmi Vilas Bank Colony.

Perumalpattu,

Thiruvallur-602024.                                                         .. Complainant.

-Vs-

Mr.K.S. Suryanarayanan,

Proprietor of M/s. Surya Pro Construction,

No.17/8, Balakrishnan Street,

Chintadripet,

Chennai-600 002.                                                          ..Opposite Party.

* * * * *

 

Counsel for the Complainant         : Party in person

 

Counsel for the Opposite Party      : M/s. G. Raju

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the Complainant in person and the counsel for the Opposite Party this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

(i)     The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to rectify the problems pertaining in the house, or prays Hon’ble Commission to order compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Complainant to rectify the problems in the house and to fine and condemn the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party in considering the claim of its customers and to pay Rs.30,000/- with appropriate interest to the Complainant towards her mental agony, pains and sufferings and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the Complainant.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant submitted that she had purchased the vacant land measuring 800 sq.ft bearing plot No.141D (South side) situated in LAKSHMI VILAS BANK EMPLOYEES UNITEDHOUSING COLONY", which is approved vide layout no. LP/DTC.P. NO. 549/98 and comprised in survey No.303/3,6,7, situated at Perumalpattu Village, Thiruvallur Taluk & Disrtict from Opposite Party vide sales deed dated 15.11.2019 registered as Doc.No.13447 of 2019 at the office of the Sub Registrar at Thiruvallur.

2.     The Complainant submitted that she had also entered into a agreement for construction dated 15.11.2019 with Opposite Party as the proprietor of M/s.Surya Pro Construction, registered as Doc.No.13441 of 2019 at the office of the Sub Registrar at Thiruvallur, for construction of an independent residential building comprising ground floor measuring 750 sq.ft to be erected in the above plot No.141D(south side). As per the said agreement the Opposite Party were obligated to complete the construction of the said Building in conformity with the specifications mentioned in schedule – Cappended with the said agreement.

3.     The Complainant submitted that as per schedule C of the registered Construction Agreement, the Opposite Party had agreed to do the following work among various other works as listed in the Schedule C;

A. Overhead Tank for drinking water with a capacity of 1000 ltrs

B. Bedroom frames made in teakwood

C. Washbasin will be brand parryware

D. CP Fitting will be brand Jaquar

E. Water Sump with a capacity of 1500 ltrs.

4.     The Complainant submitted thaton 15.11.2019, the agreement registering date the independent house was not ready with Plumbing fittings,which the Opposite Party promised he will complete it before occupation and requested to register. During discussions, they both agreed that she hold Rs.50,000/- and would provide Postdated Cheque as security to the Opposite Party, and proceed with registration and on completion of work she would release the payment.

5.     The Complainant submitted that to her surprise when she occupied the premises on 1st December 2019, the house suffered from more problems as listed below

a. House was handed over in untidy situation. (Images available)

b. Plumbing fittings (taps in all areas, health faucet, all other fittings) as per contract it should be Jaguar fitting but they have actually put Xen local make. (images available).

c. Main gate were in rusted condition, in first month left side gate broke and fall down. We repaired it with local welders.

d. Bathroom tiles not grouted properly walls are seepage and wet condition

fungus are forming outer wall (hall & bedroom). (Images available),

e. When asked to seal the holes between tiles in the bathroom. Builder person came and put white cement in all comers still after 2 years they look very ugly, (Images available).

f. Plumbing line sketch not given.

g. Electrical line sketch not given.

h. Building plan is different from actual building, hence actual plan copy not

given.

i. Bio septic tank filled and overflowing every 2 months, for cleaning 1 time they charge us 2000/- all these month we are taking it out regularly.

J. Terrace and inside home wall cracks are developing rapidly.

k. Sand stone in terrace are of very poor quality and rusting by themselves.

L. Overhead tank as per contract 1000 ltrs but actual 500 ltrs only installed

m. Washbasin is not parryware brand, some local make

n. Water sump in his pamphlet mentioned 2000 ltrs, on contract mentioned 1500 ltrs, and actually installed 500 Itr plastic tank. Which is found in broken condition and all sewage waters are filling it the sump plastic tank. It is not in usable condition.

6.     The Complainant submitted that the Opposite Party instead of building trust, harassed her by ill-treating her and not answering her calls, and portrayed her as an annoying person, which put her into more depression and stress with the trouble and hassle she faced with the Opposite Party. She had sent a legal notice in view of approaching this Hon’ble Commission, but there was no reply even after receiving it.

7.     The Complainant submitted that the Opposite Party intentionally deposited her cheque even after discussions they had, that she will stop the payment of the cheque since there is no intension from the Opposite Party to rectify the problems. She further said to the Opposite Party that she will pay the balance amount by bank transfer after successful rectification of the above-said works.

8.     The Complainant submitted that a cheque bounce case was filed against her and made her suffer without anything wrong on her side. She closed that case by settling Rs.30,000/-. She was in countless depression because of his action and was bearing immense mental agony. Hence the complaint.

 

II. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:

 

9.     The Opposite Party submitted that the construction agreement signed by the Complainant and the Opposite Party is for the purpose of bank loan.

10.    The Opposite Party submitted that before purchase of the property the Complainant visited and inspected the Property, several times before signing the agreement. The Complainant purchased the Property on bank loan, whatever the documents relating to the Property was handover to the Complainant in order to obtain loan and on satisfaction of bank advocate only loan was sanctioned to the Complainant. In addition to existing facilities and amenities, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to carry out certain works and certain finishing works. Whatever possible by the Opposite Party, send his workers to carry out the works and completed the same. The Problems which have been pointed out by the Complainant, the Opposite Party, then and there, sent his mason, electrician and plumber to carry out the same. The Opposite Party in-spite of attending to the alleged problems in the building, the Complainant was greedy and covetous, thus she was raising frivolous and flimsy issues which cannot be meet out by the Opposite Party, therefore, the dispute aroused between them and the Complainant issued Posted Cheque for Rs. 50,000/- and finally she want only and knowingly given instructions to her bank to "Stop Payment" of said Cheque.

11.    The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant was a Purchase Officer of a Paint company in Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai. The Complainant visited the property several times, initially she desired to take the northern portion of Plot and building, but she made delay to book the property and therefore the said portion was sold to one Mr. Samuel. The Complainant after dilly dally booked the southern portion, which was available, the Opposite Party has nothing to hide in the building, the Complainant on satisfying with the construction, the Complainant entered into agreement with the Opposite Party. After booking the Plot, Opposite Party carried out internal changes or in the fittings as suggested by the Complainant. The Opposite Party could not able to carry out the wild and whimsical demands of the Complainant, but, the Complainant was demanding the Opposite Party to do such works, which are impossible, countless and limitless.

12.    The Opposite Party submitted that as the Complainant came to understanding that she will not succeed in the Cheque bounce case, she assured the Opposite Party that dispute between them is over, received the third Key of the house/ building and she paid to the Opposite Party a sum of Rs.30,000/- instead of Cheque amount of Rs.50,000/-, as full and final settlement of the case. The Opposite Party states that the Complainant in vengeance and with malafide motive has filed this Complaint before this Hon'ble Consumer Forum, simply to harrass, to cause mental agony, loss and expenses to the Opposite Party. The Complainant has come before this Hon'ble Consumer Forum with contradictory and untenable contentions which are unsustainable on facts and in law.

13.    The Opposite Party submitted that the building constructed with quality materials and a good and standard building. The alleged problems raised by the Complainant are whimsical, frivolous and flimsy and the Opposite Party cleared and solved the problems pointed out by the Complainant and they could not meet out the demands of the Complainant which are unreasonable, arbitrary and limitless. The Opposite Party states that they constructed simultaneously the adjacent north portion of the Property building, there is no complaint from said purchaser of the Plot /owner till this date. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

III.      The Complainant has filed her proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 11 documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-11. The Opposite Party had submitted his proof affidavit. On the side of Opposite Party Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-6 were marked. Both side Written arguments was filed.

V. Points for Consideration:-

 

1. Whether the Opposite Party had committed Unfair Trade Practice to the Complainant?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

14.    It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased a Plot bearing No.141D (South side) situated in LAKSHMI VILAS BANK EMPLOYEES UNITEDHOUSING COLONY", which is approved vide layout No. LP/DTCP No. 549/98 and comprised in survey No.303/3,6,7, situated at Perumalpattu Village, Thiruvallur Taluk & District, measuring 800 sq.ft, from K.S. Surynarayanan under Sale Deed dated 15.11.2019, registered as Document No.13447 of 2019 in the office of the Sub Registrar at Thiruvallur and had entered into a Construction Agreement dated 15.11.2019 with the Opposite Party for construction of an Independent house in ground floor in the said Plot and the same was registered as Document No.13441 of 2019 in the office of the Sub Registrar at Thiruvallur.

15.    The disputed facts of the Complainant are that the construction works of the house were not carried out as agreed upon under the Construction Agreement and there are defects in the said house constructed by the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party had not rectified the defects in spite of her several requests and she had spent to rectify the same, which the Opposite Party has to refund the amount, but instead had given immense pressure and mental agony.

16.    The contentions of the Complainant are that the opposite Party had not provided fittings and had not carried out as per the specifications mentioned in Schedule C of the Construction Agreement dated 15.11.2019, more particularly agreed to provide Overhead Tank for drinking water with a capacity of 1000 ltrs, Bedroom frames made in teakwood, Washbasin of Parryware brand, CP Fitting of brand Jaquar and Water Sump with a capacity of 1500 ltrs.

17.    Further contended that most of the works as specified in the said Schedule were found with defects and the same were not carried to her satisfaction, when the house was handed over to her after construction on 01.12.2019 and had listed that the house was handed over in untidy situation, Plumbing fittings  as per contract it should be Jaguar fitting but fitted with Xen, a local make,  Main gate in rusted condition, left side gate broken and fell down, Bathroom tiles not grouted properly, walls with seepage and wet condition, fungus formed in outer wall (hall & bedroom), Holes between tiles in the bathroom not sealed, white cement were put in all corners after 2 years they look very ugly, Plumbing line and Electrical sketch were not given, Building plan is different from actual building, actual plan copy was not provided, Bio septic tank filled and overflowing every 2 months, for cleaning 1 time they charge Rs.2000/-, Terrace and inside home wall cracks are developing rapidly, Sand stone in terrace are of very poor quality and rusting by themselves, Overhead tank as per contract was 1000 ltrs but only 500 ltrs was installed, Washbasin not of parryware brand as agreed some local make was installed, Water sump in his pamphlet mentioned as 2000 ltrs, in contract mentioned 1500 ltrs, and actually installed only 500 Ltr plastic tank, that too found in broken condition and all sewage waters are filling it the sump plastic tank which is not in usable condition.

18.    Further contended that the above said defects as well as other defects which she had pointed out in her Legal notice dated 05.08.2020 sent on her behalf to the Opposite Party, in spite of receipt of the same the Opposite Party had not cared to rectify the defects and had not cared to reply to the said Legal notice. The Opposite party had committed unfair trade practice and thereby had caused severe mental agony, pain and suffering to her. Instead the Opposite Party was very keen in presenting her cheque for balance payment which she had informed to present on completion of the defective work failing which she had instructed stop payment, in spite of the same the cheque was presented and got bounced with stop payment instructions, though there was no wrong on her side, had to settle for Rs.30,000/-.

19.    Further contended that she denies the wordings mentioned as “ and all our disputes are settled” in Ex.B-4, as the said overwritten content was not there when she had signed the said document and further when she has received the third set of keys from the Opposite party as per Ex.A-10 there was no such mentioning. Further contended that she was forced to sign the sales contract for Southern portion as the northern portion which was agreed to be sold to her, was sold to one Samuvel, as no other option having handed over initial payment for northern portion to the Opposite Party.

20.    Further contended that as the plumbing fitting were not fixed, she had agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- on completion and handing over of the property, since insisted for posted dated cheque for Rs.50,000/- she had issued the same, if at all she would have borrowed Rs.70,000/- the Opposite Party would not have accepted the said cheque for Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the Opposite Party had come out with concocted story as if the value of the Building was originally fixed at Rs.30 lakhs and the same was negotiated and accepted for Rs.28 Lakhs, further the Opposite Party had not constructed her house as per plan only to defraud the bank and registrar office the Completion certificate, Ex.B-6 has been made ready and further it is absolutely incorrect to state by the Opposite Party that the building constructed in northern portion for Mr.Samuvel does not have any issues.

21.    Further contended that the Opposite Party by his mail dated 17.02.2020, Ex.B-1, had admitted that he had admitted the defects in the construction and the same was confirmed by rectifying the defects in plumbing, door works, leakages etc., and from the said mail it would be clearly shown that poor standard of construction done by the Opposite Party, as it was mentioned that leakage is common during rainy season. Hence it would be clear that the Opposite party has not maintained the quality and standard in the Construction work carried out by him and had handed over a defective building which still has lots of complaints and defects to be repaired which also involves expenses. Thus the Opposite party had committed unfair trade practice and thereby had caused her with severe mental agony, pain and suffering. 

22.    The contentions of the Opposite Party are that the construction agreement signed by the Complainant and the Opposite Party is for the purpose of bank loan. Before purchase of the property the Complainant visited and inspected the Property several times before signing the agreement. The Complainant purchased the Property on bank loan, hence the documents relating to the Property was handover to the Complainant in order to obtain loan and on satisfaction of bank advocate only loan was sanctioned to the Complainant. In addition to existing facilities and amenities, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to carry out certain works and certain finishing works and the same were carried and completed. The Problems that were pointed out by the Complainant, then and there, were attended by his mason, electrician and plumber to carry out the same. Inspite of attending to the alleged problems in the building, the Complainant was greedy and covetous, she had raised frivolous and flimsy issues which could not be met out by him, therefore, the dispute arouse between them and the Complainant issued Posted Cheque for Rs. 50,000/- and finally she wantonly and knowingly given instructions to her bank to "Stop Payment" of said Cheque.

23.    Further contended that the Complainant was a Purchase Officer of a Paint company and she visited the property several times, initially she desired to take the northern portion of Plot and building, but she made delay to book the property and therefore the said portion was sold to one Mr. Samuel. The Complainant after dilly dally booked the southern portion, which was available he has nothing to hide in the building, the Complainant on satisfying with the construction, she had entered into agreement with him. Further contended that after booking the Plot he had carried out internal changes or in the fittings as suggested by the Complainant. He could not able to carry out the wild and whimsical demands of the Complainant, but, the Complainant demanded him to do such works, which were impossible, countless and limitless.

24.    Further contended that having understood that she will not succeed in the Cheque bounce case, she assured him that dispute between them is over, received the third Key of the house/ building and she paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- instead of Cheque amount of Rs.50,000/-, as full and final settlement of the case. The Complainant only in vengeance and with malafide motive has filed the preset Complaint only to harass and, to cause mental agony, loss and expenses to him with contradictory and untenable contentions which are unsustainable on facts and in law.

25.    Further contended that the building has been constructed with quality materials and a good and standard building, the alleged problems raised by the Complainant are whimsical, frivolous and flimsy and the Opposite Party cleared and solved the problems pointed out by the Complainant and they could not meet out the demands of the Complainant which are unreasonable, arbitrary and limitless. He had constructed simultaneously the adjacent north portion of the Property building, there is no complaint from said purchaser of the Plot /owner till this date.

26.    Further contended that through mail dated 17.02.2020, Ex.B-1, it was informed that he had rectified and carried out the works as pointed by the Complainant and the Complainant had not denied the receipt of Rs.70,000/- received from him towards Registration Charges and Stamp Duty, as mentioned in Ex.B-2, as the same was not agreed under the agreement.

27.    Further contended that only after issuing a Legal notice dated 02.03.2020, Ex.B-6, towards cheque issued by her that got bounced, the Complainant had sent a reply dated 04.03.2020, Ex.B-7 making limitless false allegations, as in the said reply she had sought to rectify the road in front of her house and the defects which was already rectified by him and had further alleged that she would hold Rs.45,000/- for rectification of those defects and would repay Rs.5,000/-and further it was mentioned in the said reply she would demand all the works agreed in the contract and orally confirmed which was denied and compromised by the Opposite party and had listed certain works and had demanded for additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- apart from Rs.50,000/- lying with her.

28.    Further contended that thereafter the Complainant had issued a Legal notice dated 05.08.2020 with false and frivolous allegations in contradiction to her email dated 21.02.2020 & reply notice dated 04.03.2020 and demanded Rs.5,00,000/-, whereas had claimed for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in the present complaint.

29.    Further contended that the Complainant during the pendency of the Cheque bounce case had agreed to settle Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.50,000/- and on 17.08.2022 had paid Rs.30,000/- and got back her third set of keys and had got an acknowledgement from the Opposite Party, Ex.A-10 and had signed a letter, Ex.B-4 assuring all the disputes settled between them.

30.    Further contended that if the Complainant would have actually aggrieved with the defects as mentioned in her Legal Notice dated 05.08.2020, she would have taken action immediately, but she had waited till the cheque bounce case is over and thereafter with a lapse of more than 2 years had filed the present complaint in October, 2020, which clearly shows the demeanour and attitude of the Complainant.

31.    From the discussions made above and on perusal of records, it is clear that the Complainant had sought for rectification of defects in the subject house constructed by the Opposite Party even before taking of the delivery/handing over to perform ceremony and the handing over of the subject house was made on 01.12.2020 as admitted by the Complainant and the Opposite Party. The Complainant averred that even after taking delivery of the subject house she had listed out many defects that are to be rectified and many works that are to be carried out as per Schedule C of the Construction Agreement and also averred that the same were not carried out and rectified by the Opposite Party. It is to be noted that originally the Complainant along with the complaint had filed Exs.A-1 to A-11, of which Ex.A-1 Construction Agreement dated 15.11.2019, Ex.A-2 Sale Deed dated 15.11.2019 in respect of Undivided Share in the Land, Ex.A-3 Legal Notice dated 05.08.2020 sent to the Opposite Party and Ex.A-7 Reply notice dated 04.03.2020 sent to the Opposite Party in support of the claim made in respect to the rectification of the defects to be made by the Opposite party, but the Complainant had failed to place the mail communications exchanged between her and the Opposite party on 17.02.2020 and 21.02.2020, Ex.B-1 and B-2, respectively. In Ex.B-1 Mail dated 17.02.2020 sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, the Opposite party had clearly explained about the works that has been pointed by the Complainant has been carried out and the other works demanded by the Complainant could not be carried out as it was explained that making damages in well constructed house after occupying the house and pressurizing to do works and had even given an offer of taking back the house at the same price which was declined by the Complainant and had also clearly mentioned that the Complainant had wantonly giving trouble with an intention to extract money from the Opposite Party. And also mentioned about the presentation of a cheque to be made after Registration, as the registration was taken place on 15.11.2019, the Complainant has not permitted to present the same till that date and had informed the same would be presented for realization. For which by Reply Mail dated 21.02.2020, Ex.B-2, the Complainant had sought for refund of Rs.50,000/- paid in excess, which has not been claimed in the present complaint and had also clearly mentioned that “Please deduct Rs.20,000/- you spent for rectification and arrange to refund Rs.30,000/- to my bank account”. Hence it is to be noted that the Complainant had not listed out the defective works if at all existed in the subject house nor had mentioned about the works to be carried as per the Construction Agreement, Ex.A-1, as alleged in the complaint. Further it is to be noted that the Opposite Party by Rejoinder Mail dated 26.02.2020, Ex.B-3 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the Complainant only to avoid payment had come out with a story of refund of excess amount and had informed that he had presented the cheque.  

32.    Further it is to be noted that the Complainant only after receiving the Legal Notice dated 02.03.2020, Ex.B-3 from the Opposite Party in respect of the cheque of Rs.50,000/- issued to the Opposite Party got bounced, for which in her Reply notice dated 04.03.2020, Ex.B-4, the Complainant had listed out the defective works and even in which she had admitted that most of the defective works pointed out has been carried out by the Opposite party and she would retain a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards unfinished work and would pay Rs.5,000/-, which would be clear that the Complainant as an afterthought or to counterblast the proceedings that are to be initiated against her, has filed the present complaint, as the Opposite Party by Ex.B-1, Mail dated 17.02.2020 had clearly informed that he had rectified the defects that are pointed by the Complainant, which was also admitted by the Complainant in Ex.B-2.

33.    Further it is to be noted that the Complainant thereafter only on 05.08.2020 had issued a Legal Notice, Ex.A-3, to the Opposite party, wherein she had again listed out the defective works to be rectified and works not carried out as per the Construction Agreement by the Opposite Party. Thereafter after filing of the Cheque Bouncing case as seen in Ex.A-8, the Complainant had settled a sum of Rs.30,000/- and had received third set of her house keys, as seen in Ex.A-10 and thereafter the Cheque Bouncing Case was found to be withdrawn as seen in Ex.A-11.

34.    The contentions of the Complainant that she had originally agreed to purchase Northern Portion of the Plot in 141-D, but she was forced to sign the Sale Contract for Southern Portions of plot in 141-D is not at all legally sustainable, as having accepted and signed the Sale Deed dated 15.11.2019 in respect of Southern Portion of Plot 141D and got registered the same as well as having accepted and signed the Construction Agreement dated 15.11.2019 with the Opposite Party, the Complainant is estopped from making such allegations. Though the Complainant had denied the wordings mentioned as “and all our disputes are settled” in Ex.B-4, as the said overwritten content was not there when she had signed the said document and further when she has received the third set of keys from the Opposite party as per Ex.A-10 there was no such mentioning, the Complainant had not raised any objection during marking of Ex.B-4 and even assuming without admitting the said overwritten words, i.e., “and all our disputes are settled” would in no manner would help the Opposite Party, if any defective work found and/or works not carried out as per the Construction Agreement by the Opposite Party.

35.    Hence it is clear that the Complainant by her Reply Mail dated 21.02.2020, Ex.B-2, had admitted and accepted that the Opposite Party had rectified the works pointed out by her and even the Mail dated 17.02.2020, Ex.B-1 the Opposite party had categorically explained the Complainant about the rectification of works done as pointed out by the Complainant, the Complainant had failed to substantiate her claim by producing authenticated material evidence to prove any Unfair trade Practice committed by the Opposite Party. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party had not committed unfair trade practice. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

 

POINTS NO 2 & 3:

36.    As discussed and decided Point No.1 in favour of the Opposite Party, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 27^thof  June 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	15.11.2019	Construction agreement
Ex.A2	15.11.2019	Land agreement
Ex.A3	05.08.2020	Legal notice
Ex.A4	10.08.2020	Acknowledgement card
Ex.A5		Pamphlet
Ex.A6	02.03.2020	Opposite Party legal notice
Ex.A7	04.03.2020	My reply to lawyer
Ex.A8	15.02.2021	Cheque bounce case notice to Complainant
Ex.A9		Bank statement
Ex.A10	17.08.2022	Settlement acknowledgement
Ex.A11	17.08.2022	Case disposed report

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

Ex.B1	17.02.2020	Email from Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.B2	21.02.2020	Reply Email from Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.B3	26.02.2020	Rejoinder Email from Opposite Party to Complainant
Ex.B4	17.08.2022	Letter of Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.B5		Opposite Party Bank Statement for the relevant period
Ex.B6		Building construction completion certificate

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT