Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/394/2007

N.T.Ravaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Ravi - Opp.Party(s)

S.Venkateshwaran

09 Mar 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                       Date of Filing  : 04.01.2007

                                                                                                                        Date of Order : 09.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES 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

 

CC. NO.394 /2007

FRIDAY THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2018                                          

1. Mr.N.T.Ravraj,

Flat No.9,

2. Mr.R.Swaminathan,

Flat No.8,

3. Mrs. C. Maheswari,

Flat No.10,

4. Mrs. P.Saradha

Flat No.7,

5. Mr.R.Balasundaram,

Flat No.6,

6. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi

Flat No.3,

7. Mr.A. Jayaraman,

Flat No.1,

 

All are residing at “Madhuban Apartments”

Old No.3, New No.5, First Cross Street,

Indira Nagar, Adyar,

Chennai 20.                                                              .. Complainant

 

                                      ..Vs..

 

Mr. Ravi,

The Managing Director,

M/s. New Shetlers,

No.22, Abhiramapuram,

I Street, Chennai – 18.                                    ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for complainants      :  M/s.  S.Venkateswaran  

Counsel for opposite party     :  M/s.  L.Murali Krishnan

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards deficiency of service and also to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,00,520/- towards relaying the terraces and to pay cost of the complaint.   

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

          The complainant submit that  the opposite party who has instigated the complainants through their advertisements and brochure and entered into an agreements with the complainants and the complainant also purchased the respective flats with a fond hope that it would be luxury/deluxe flats,  since the flat is of 4 floors the opposite party promised that they would provide lift connection immediately on occupation of complainants respective flats.   Despite of repeated reminders made by the complainants the opposite party willfully and deliberately neglected to rectify the same and complete the works they have assured at the time of entering into the agreement.  The difficulties faced by the complainants were brought to the knowledge of the opposite party even at the first flat owners meeting.  In which the opposite party also took active participation and once again assured the flat owners that they will complete the pending works within 15 days.  After repeated request in person and through letter to the opposite party for more than five months the opposite party has not provided lift.   Further the complainants state that the terrace is very badly kept with accumulation of building materials.   Pipelines are haphazardly laid which hinders the free walking area.  Rain water outlets are not covered with mesh.   In open to air area no water outlet is provided, stagnated water becomes breeding place of mosquitoes which is a health hazard.  The complainant further state that  though the complainants have paid the entire sale consideration the opposite party initially had provided only four separate electricity consumption meters for 9 individual flats occupied by which, the other flat owners have to pay the consumption charges to the owners of the ground floor.   All the defects were informed by the complainants to the opposite party but they failed to rectify the defects.   Therefore the complainants sent legal notice to the opposite party on 4.4.2006.  Though the opposite party received the said legal notice has not rectified the defects nor sent any reply.     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.  

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite party state that the present complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation.   The complainants were handed over their respective flats and the entire building for occupation in January 2003 itself.   That being the fact, the cause of action for deficiency service in construction of the building if any arises in January 2003 and as per Sec.24A of the C. P. Act 1986, a complaint shall not be admitted unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arise.   The two year period commenced in January 2003 and expired in January 2005 and therefore, complaint is not maintainable.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no document marked on the side of the  opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.100520/- towards the expenses incurred for relying terrace with compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony with cost as prayed for ?

5. POINTS 1  & 2 :

        Opposite party filed written arguments.   The complainants has not filed any written arguments or advanced any oral arguments.   Perused the records (viz.) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents. The complainant contended that on seeing the brochure and advertisement entered into agreement in the year 2001 and purchased the Luxury apartments and occupied the flat.  The opposite party assured to provide lift and other amenities.  But the opposite party neglected to do the rectification work and complete the work as per Ex.A1.  The deficiency in work of the opposite party were explained in the meeting also.  But the opposite party not attended any work.  Hence this complaint is filed.   

6.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the complainants were occupied their respective flats and the entire building is handed over by the opposite party during the month of January 2003.  This  complaint is filed only on 4.1.2007,  after inordinate delay of 2 years.   The complainant has not filed any petition under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act; to condone the delay of two years in filing this case.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that mere engineer report shall not condone the delay in filing this case.   The cause of action in this case also arose immediately on the date of occupation and handing over the possession of the property during the month of January 2003; which was totally suppressed by the complainant in the complaint also. The complainant has not rebutted the contentions of delay in filing the case raised from the very inception by way of written version and in the proof affidavit.  The other contentions related to deficiency of service in the construction of the building and material used is need not be discussed in this case; since the case is barred by limitation.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that  the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in this case and the points 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 the 9^th  day of March 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 30.8.2001 - Copy of the construction agreement.

Ex.A2- 2.11.2003 - Copy of the letter written by the complainants.

Ex.A3-                 - Copy of Bill for the purchase of the building martial.

Ex.A4- 13.11.2005- Copy of Civil Engineer’s report.

Ex.A5- 16.11.2005- Copy of letter to the opposite party by the complainant.

Ex.A6-                   - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A7- 3.4.2006  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A8-                 - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A9- 12.6.2006 - Copy of Civil Engineer’s report.

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  ..Nil..

Exhibits : C1      :  8.9.2010 – Advocate Commissioner report

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT