Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/32/2015

G.Rajamannar, S/o.Late Govindaraju, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. R.Bhuvana, The Proprietor, M/s. Meenakshi Foundation, and anr - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Thiruvalluvan,

07 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                       ::     PRESIDENT                       

                  Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

C.C. No.32/2015

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

1. G. Rajamannar,

S/o. Late Govindaraju,

No.130, Pedariamman Koil Street,

Broadway,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

2. G. Shantha,

D/o. Late Govindaraju,

No.87/5, Cheran Street,

Prakash Nagar,

Vijayalakshmipuram,

Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 053.                                                                                  .. Complainants. 

 

-Versus-

 

1. Mrs. R. Bhuvana,

Proprietor,

M/s. Meenakshi Foundation,

No.87 (G1), Cheran Street,

Vijayalakshmipuram,

Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 053.

 

2. Mr. Ramesh Kumar,

S/o. Not Known,   

No.87/5, Cheran Street,

Prakash Nagar,

Vijayalakshmipuram,

Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 053                                                                          .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainants                          : M/s. K. Thiruvalluvan

Counsel for the opposite parties                      : M/s. D. Senthilvel

 

This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 16.02.2022  and on hearing the arguments of both parties and upon perusing the material records submitted by both parties and this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

 Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI   : MEMBER

1.         The present complaint was filed by the complainants against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and to direct them (i) to allot a car park, (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.8,11,800/-, (iii) to handover the original title deeds relating to the property with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and cost of the complaint.

2.         Brief facts necessitating the filing of complaint:

Complaint Allegations:-

It was the case of the complainants that his father Mr. K. Govindaraju who expired in 2008 had executed a Will in respect of the property in Survey No.16/1, Oragadam Village, Mrs. G. Santha, Mrs. G. Kasthuri, and Mrs. G. Saroja on 08.02.2007. The present complainants were approached by the opposite parties 1 & 2 who are builders to construct flats in the above mentioned property under Joint Venture by demolition and re-construction.  The opposite parties promised to allot 2 flats to the complainants and in furtherance, a Sale cum Construction Agreement was entered on 30.07.2012 between the parties whereby  the value of the land is considered for Rs.1 Crore and the opposite parties  agreed to give Rs.60 lakhs by allotting 2 flats to the complainants and to pay Rs.40 lakhs in cash.  Only an advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the opposite parties to the complainants and the opposite parties promised to pay the balance Rs.35,00,000/- within 5 days from the date of Agreement.   However, taking ignorance of the complainants and her sisters the opposite parties got executed a Sale Deed for the value of Rs.45,00,000/- in their favour and to avoid any suspicion had given one flat in the favour of the 2^nd complainant’s name.   Thus, the opposite parties failed to act in terms of the Agreement dt.30.07.2012  The 1^st opposite party had further taken 369 sq. ft. common area from the 2^nd complainant by a Sale Deed for Rs.8,11,800/- by way of a Registered Document before the Ambattur, Sub-Register Office but failed to pay the cash.   The opposite party also did not give the car park for the flat allotted to the complainants as agreed in the Agreement.  The opposite parties though had completed entire construction and allotted only one flat to the complainants had refused to hand over the original title documents related to the allotted flat and the property to the complainants.  When questioned by the complainants they threatened them with dire consequences and even they went to the extent of attacking the complainants with rowdy elements. A police complaint was also filed by the complainants against the opposite parties.  Thus, the complainants has come with the present complaint for the reliefs as mentioned above alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

3.         Defence allegations:-

The opposite parties filed version disputing the averments made by the complainants with regard to the alleged Joint Venture Agreement entered between the parties with a promise to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- with 2 residential flats by way of Agreement dt.30.07.2012.   They submitted that the complaint filed by showing the 2^nd complainant as a party is not proper as the 2^nd complainant has already been dead.   They further disputed that the complainants’ father expired only in 2012 and not as mentioned by the complainants in 2008.  The alleged promise made by the opposite parties for payment of Rs.35,00,000/- within 5 days of the Agreement was false and they also denied the allegations that taking ignorance of the parties they had entered into a Sale Deed for Rs.45,00,000/-.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 never threatened the complainants nor they fraudulently register any Sale Deed in their favour for the total extent of 2400 sq. ft. for Rs.45,00,000/-.   As now G. Shantha is no more, the opposite parties wanted the 1^st complainant G. Rajamannar to produce the legal heir certificate to register the Sale Deed with regard to the flat S-1 which was delivered to them However the same was not produced as one of the legal heir Mr. Deenadayalan is in Jail.  Hence, the Sale Deed could not be registered, however the possession was handed over to the 1^st complainant and he is in possession even today.  The opposite parties further denied that  they did not force the complainants  to vacate from the S-1 Flat and did not attack the complainants with dangerous weapons.  The statement made with regard to payment of Rs.8,11,8100/- for the alleged purchase of UDS from the 2^nd complainant was also false.   The opposite parties further stated that this Consumer Commission was not the appropriate Forum to decide the allegations raised by the complainants as the issue relates to Criminal offences under Section 420 & 506 (ii) IPC.   Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The 1^st complainant, Mr. G. Rajamannar had filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9.  On the side of the opposite parties, the 1^st opposite party, R. Bhuvana filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B9.

5.         Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint as filed  before this Commission could be adjudicated by this Commission?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. If so, what relief the complainants is entitled to?

6.         Point No.1:-

The complainants has filed the following documents in proof of the complaint allegations:

1. The Will dt.08.02.2007 executed by the complainants’ father late Govidaraju  bequeathing  the property in favour of his daughters Mrs. G. Shantha, Mrs. G. Kasthuri and Mrs. G. Saroja was marked as Ex.A1;
2. The Agreement of Sale executed by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the complainants dt.30.07.2012 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. The Sale Deed dt.14.09.2012 alleged to have been executed by Mrs. G. Shantha, Mrs. G. Kasthuri and Mrs. G. Saroja in favour of the 1^st opposite party/ Builder for a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Sale cum Construction Agreement for the 2^nd Floor Flat in favour of 1^st complainant is marked as Ex.A4;
5. The Sale Cum construction Agreement for the 1^st Floor flat in favour 2^nd complainant dt.11.09.2013 was marked as Ex.A5;
6. The Sale Deed for 369 sq. ft common area executed by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the complainants is marked as Ex.A6;
7. The legal notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainants to vacate the flat in the 2^nd Floor dt.01.09.2014 was marked as Ex.A7;
8. The police complaint filed by the complainants before the Ambattur Police Station dt.04.12.2014 was marked as Ex.A8;
9. The receipt for the police complaint dt.04.12.2014 was marked as Ex.A9;

 

On the side of the opposite parties, the following documents were filed:-

1. The Sale Deed dt.14.09.2012 executed by Mrs. N. Shantha, Mrs. K. Kasthuri, Mrs. G. Saroja in favour of the 1^st opposite party is marked as Ex.B1;
2. The Plan Approval issued by the Corporation of Chennai for demolition and re-construction in the schedule property dt.22.01.2013 in favour of the 1^st opposite party is marked as Ex.B2;
3. The Agreement dt.14.09.2012 entered between M/s. Meenakshi Foundation represented by the 1^st opposite party and Mr. G. Rajamannar and Mrs. G. Shantha with respect to Flat S-1 was marked as Ex.B3;
4. The Agreement dt.05.09.2013 entered between M/s. Meenakshi Foundation represented by the 1^st opposite party and Mrs. G. Saroja and Mr. Karthick with respect to Flat F-3 was marked as Ex.B4;
5. The Sale Deed dt.13.12.2013 entered between M/s. Meenakshi Foundation represented by the 1^st opposite party and Mrs. G. Saroja and Mr. Karthick with respect to Flat F-3 was marked as Ex.B5;
6. The letter handing over Flat No.F3 in favour of G. Saroja and Karthick dt.13.12.2013 was marked as Ex.B6;
7. The letter handing over Flat No.S-1 in favour of Mr. G. Rajamannar and Mr. Deenadayalan dt.17.09.2014 was marked as Ex.B7;
8. The complaint registered by the 1^st opposite party in the Ambattur Police Station against Mrs. G. Saroja dt.04.12.2014 was marked as Ex.B8;
9. The plaint in O.S. No.353 /2015 filed in District Munsiff Court at Ambattur was marked as Ex.B9;

7.         We have perused the pleadings and material evidence produced by both parties and also heard the arguments advanced by the Counsel for complainants.   It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties and the complainants had entered into certain transactions with respect to the demolition and reconstruction of the property situated in Survey No.16/1, Oragadam Village, Old No.52/21, Door No.87/5, Cheran Nagar belonging to the 3 sisters namely; Mrs. G. Shantha, Mrs. G. Kasthuri, and Mrs. G. Saroja.  It is the case of the complainants that the opposite parties who are builders fraudulently promised the owners of the property to promote flats in the above mentioned scheduled property and to allot two flats of value of Rs.60,00,000/- and to give Rs.40,00,000/- in cash,  however, the opposite parties had allotted only one flat.   It is the further case of the complainants that the builder illegally refused to allot the 2^nd flat and also to give the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- and also retained the original documents belonging to the allotted flat.  However the opposite parties denied all the allegations and had submitted that they had purchased the property from the three sisters namely; Mrs. G. Shantha, Mrs. G. Kasthuri, and Mrs. G. Saroja for the value of Rs.45,00,000/- and had promoted flats in the said property.   The opposite parties had specifically mentioned in the written version that the 2^nd complainant was not alive on the date of complaint and hence, the complaint filed in the name of G. Shantha is not maintainable.   For this allegation, there is no denial by the complainants’ Counsel and hence, we are of the view that prima facie the complaint filed in the name of the dead person is not maintainable. 

8.         Further on going through the allegations and evidence produced by both parties, we are of the opinion that such disputed question of  facts could not be decided in a summary manner by this Consumer Commission.  Further our view is supported  by the document produced by the opposite party.   Wherein, the opposite parties with respect to the same subject property Civil Suit before the District Munsiff Court, Ambattur and the copy of plaint in O.S. No.353/2015 was filed as Ex.B9.  In such circumstances when the issued had been already taken cognizance by a Civil Court we should refrain ourselves from giving any finding with regard to the allegations raised by either parties.  Thus point No.1 is answered holding that the complaint as filed could not be entertained by this Commission.

9.         Point No.2:-

As we have held above that the complaint filed before this Commission is not maintainable, the issue relating to the allegations of deficiency in service alleged to have committed by the opposite parties need not be gone into.  Thus point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, we hold that the complaint as filed before this Consumer Commission could not be entertained and the same is dismissed but without cost considering the facts and circumstances.   

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                         R. SUBBIAH             

          MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

List of Documents filed by the Complainants:-   

Ex.A1	08.02.2007	Copy of Will executed by the complainants’ father late Govidaraju
Ex.A2	30.07.2012	Copy of Agreement of Sale executed by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complainants
Ex.A3	14.09.2012	Copy of the Sale Deed in favour of the 1st opposite party/ Builder for a sum of Rs.45,00,000/-
Ex.A4	.09.2012	Sale cum Construction Agreement for the (S1) 2nd Floor Flat in favour of 1st complainant
Ex.A5	11.09.2013	Sale Cum construction Agreement for the 1st Floor flat in favour 2nd complainant
Ex.A6	13.12.2013	Sale Deed for 369 sq. ft common area executed by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complainants
Ex.A7	01.09.2014	Copy of legal notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainants to vacate the flat
Ex.A8	04.12.2014	Copy of police complaint filed by the complainants before the Ambattur Police Station
Ex.A9	04.12.2014	Copy of receipt for the police complaint given by Ambattur Police Station, Chennai

 

List of Documents filed by the opposite parties:-   

                                               

Ex.B1	14.09.2012	Sale Deed executed in favour of the 1st opposite party
Ex.B2	22.01.2013	Plan Approval
Ex.B3	14.09.2012	Agreement entered between M/s. Meenakshi Foundation represented by the 1st opposite party and Mr. G. Rajamannar and Mrs. G. Shantha with respect to Flat S-1
Ex.B4	05.09.2013	Agreement entered between M/s. Meenakshi Foundation represented by the 1st opposite party and Mrs. G. Saroja and Mr. Karthick with respect to Flat F-3
Ex.B5	13.12.2013	Sale Deed entered between M/s. Meenakshi Foundation represented by the 1st opposite party and Mrs. G. Saroja and Mr. Karthick with respect to Flat F-3
Ex.B6	13.12.2013	letter handing over Flat No.F3 in favour of G. Saroja and Karthick dt.13.12.2013
Ex.B7	17.09.2014	letter handing over Flat No.S-1 in favour of Mr. G. Rajamannar and Mr. Deenadayalan
Ex.B8	04.12.2014	complaint registered by the 1st opposite party in the Ambattur Police Station against Mrs. G. Saroja
Ex.B9	2015	plaint in O.S. No.353 /2015 filed in District Munsiff Court at Ambattur

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                         R. SUBBIAH             

          MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT`