Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

172/2014

Mr.Vijayakumar Gundavarapu, Rep by P/A Mr.Prakashraj Gundavarapu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.Abishek ,Director urban free Infrastructures pvt Ltd., good Sheppard square - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  20.08.2014

                                                               Order pronounced on:  19.08.2016

 

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

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 19^th  DAY OF AUGUST 2016

 

C.C.NO.172/2014

 

 

 

Mr.Vijaykumar Gundavarapu,

Rep by P/A Mr. Prakashrao Gundavarapu,

Atrium, flat D-202, 5^th Cross Road,

Telephone Nagar,

Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096.

 

Email:gnlgppr@yahoo.co.in

 

                                                                                          ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

Mr.Abshiek Mehta – Director,

Urban Tree Infrastructures Pvt Ltd.,

Good Sheppard Square, 6^th Floor,

No.86, Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

 

Email:absheikmehta@urbantree.co.in

	.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 26.08.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

         

Counsel for   opposite party                     : M/s.Vikram.U.Jain

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

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

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a flat from the Opposite Party project named ‘ATRIUM’, 5^th cross road, Telephone Nagar, Chennai – 96. The gross cost of the flat was at Rs.51,30,080/- which is inclusive of ‘Corpus Fund’ of Rs.35,000/-. The said fund was payable by the Opposite Party to owner’s welfare association was formed after taking possession. The Complainant paid entire sale consideration and took possession of the flat on 22.04.2013. After formation of owner’s association, the Opposite Party failed to transfer the corpus fund as promised by him. The Opposite Party collected extra amount of Rs.5,000/- for providing  two additional T.V points, in two bedrooms each and however the Opposite Party failed to provide those points. The Opposite Party also collected a sum of Rs.99,842/- towards excess VAT. The Complainant issued a letter dated 18.01.2014 to refund the amount and the Opposite Party did not respond. Hence the Complainant failed this Complaint to pay the corpus fund of Rs.35,000/- and another sum of Rs.99,842/- towards excess VAT and another sum of Rs.5,000/- for not providing T.V points totaling to Rs.1,39,842/- with 24% interest and also for compensation with  cost of the Complaint.

2. THE WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and concealed material particulars viz. Agreement for sale and construction and filed this Complaint. As per clause 3(ii) and (iii) of the said agreement the Complainant agreed to pay the service tax and sales tax charges. Further, as per agreement the corpus fund shall be payable directly to the residence association. The actual net cost payable by the Complainant to the developer excluding corpus fund was Rs.51,52,741/-. The additional T.V point as agreed was duly provided to the Complainant. The VAT has been collected strictly in accordance with the Act. The other allegations made in the Complaint are denied. The Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. 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 relief?

4. POINT NO: 1

          It is an admitted fact that the Opposite Party developed a project by name ‘ATRIUM” at 5^th cross street, Telephone Nagar, Chennai – 96 and the Complainant agreed to purchase a flat No.D202 from the Opposite Party and in respect of the same the Complainant paid the entire cost of the flat to the Opposite Party and for the proof of same, the Opposite Party issued Ex.A2 letter to the Complainant and the Complainant also took possession of the flat as per Ex.A3.

          5. According to the Complainant the deficiencies committed by the Opposite Party are that he had collected a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards corpus fund and the said amounts has to be refunded to him and he also collected a sum of Rs.5,000/- to provide additional T.V point in two bedrooms each at one bedroom and he also collected VAT for a sum of Rs.1,79,716/-            instead of the estimated VAT of Rs.1,59,747/- and therefore the differential value collected shall be refunded to him.

          6. The Complainant relies on Ex.A1 proof for payment of Rs.35,000/- towards corpus fund to the Opposite Party. On perusal of Ex.A1, it reveals that it is only an estimation of a flat cost in working sheet. Nowhere in Ex.A1 mentions that the corpus amount mentioned therein paid to the Opposite Party. According to the Opposite Party he had not collected the said fund and the same is payable after formation of owner’s association and the Complainant also paid the said amount to that association only. Ex.A5 receipt issued by the ‘ATRIUM’ owned association to the Complainant for receipt of corpus fund of Rs.35,000/-. Therefore Ex.A5 proves that the Complainant paid the corpus fund only to the association and not to the Opposite Party. Therefore in this respect the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          7. The Complainant alleged that the Opposite Party charged an extra amount of Rs.5,000/- for providing two additional T.V points, one in master bedroom and another in second bedroom and that was not provided by him. The Opposite Party would contend that he had provided as required by the Complainant. The Complainant stated in para 6 of his proof affidavit that he did not provide individual points instead he made a common connection. Therefore the admitted evidence proves that the Opposite Party provided common T.V connection for the requirement of the Complainant and therefore in this respect also the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          8. During arguments the Complainant specifically argued that the estimated VAT for his flat is Rs.1,59,747/- and instead the Opposite Party actually collected Rs.1,79,716/- and therefore the differential  excess sum of Rs.19,969/- shall be ordered to be refunded to him. The Complainant further contended that the VAT was collected at the imaginary rate of 4.5% on works contract instead of 2% on gross work and therefore he has collected excess amount. The Opposite Party replied that the VAT has been altered by way of amendment dated 12.07.2011 raising from goods are taxable 4% to 5% and goods are taxable 12.5% to 14.5% and therefore they have rightly collected the VAT and not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          9. The Complainant has not filed any  proof that  2% VAT has to be collected. On the other hand the Opposite Party counsel produced G.O.MS.No.76 dated 11.07.2011 notification I & II which clearly proves the contention of the Opposite Party raising the goods of VAT from 4% to 5% and goods are taxable from 12.5% to 14.5%. The possession has been handed over and taken by the Complainant as per Ex.A2 possession letter on 22.04.2013. Even before taking possession the government has raised the VAT as stated above. Therefore, the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party collected excess VAT is not accepted and further it is held in accordance with the Government order referred above only he has collected the VAT. Therefore, it is held that any one of the deficiencies alleged by the Complainant has not been proved by the Complainant and hence we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

 

10. POINT NO: 2

          Since the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint 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 19^th day of August 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Booking Cost working sheet

Ex.A2 dated 22.04.2013                   No due certificate

Ex.A3 dated 22.04.2013                   Possession letter

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Photographs 

Ex.A5 dated 07.03.2014                   Receipt for Corpus Fund

Ex.A6 dated 20.03.2013                   Demand Letter dated 20.03.2013

Ex.A7 dated 18.01.2014                   Letter given by Complainant

Ex.A8 dated 15.07.2014                   Notice to Opposite Party

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1 dated 23.11.2014                   Board Resolution

 

Ex.B2 dated 06.09.2011                   Tripartite Agreement for sale and Construction

 

                                     

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT