BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 19/12/2013

Date of Order : 26/06/2014

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 874/2013

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :-

The opposite party is a builder. They published advertisements regarding the sale of water front cottages villas to be built in their property situated in Thaikkattukara Village, “Apple New Cochin.” At the instance of the the complainant, the opposite party promised to deliver a 500 sq.ft. cottage No. H-35 and a 2000 sq.ft. water front villa (No. 283) within 36 months from the date of payment of the advance. It was also promised to hand over the possession of the villa along with various amenities. Believing the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- towards the booking advance on 07-08-2008 for a cottage and Rs. 4,00,006/- towards the booking advance for the villa on 03-10-2008. But as against the assurance to start the construction work on or before 1^st day of January 2009, nothing was done by them to start the work including site clearing. On the other hand, the opposite parties sought extension of time for starting the work and for executing the construction agreement. The act of the opposite parties to make misleading statements regarding the launching of the villa project amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has taken up the matter with the opposite party on several occasions, but nothing was done by them to fulfill the promise made by them. Finally, the opposite parties had agreed to refund the advance amount given for the cottage along with prevailing bank fixed deposit interest rate by May 2011. The complainant approached the opposite parties for collecting the amount in May 2011. But instead of paying the amount, they sought further extension of one year time to settle the matter. In the meantime, the opposite parties closed the operation of their office and the 2^nd opposite party and the other Directors of the 1^st opposite party were absconded. Subsequently they surrendered before the police. The complainant has been suffering from huge financial loss, hardships and mental agony due to the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties and collection of the advance amount. The complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 4,10,006/- paid by the complainant towards booking advance for the cottage and villa along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from 03-10-2008 till realisation together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The opposite parties were served with a notice of this complaint, however, they opted to remain absent during the proceedings. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. Heard the counsel for the complainant.

3. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 4,10,106/- together with interest @ 15% p.a. from the opposite parties?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

4. Point No. i. :- The complainant booked villa No. H-35 of the opposite party's project by name “My Own Hut” and paid Rs. 10,000/- by way of advance on 03-10-2008 evident from Ext. A2 receipt issued by the opposite parties. The opposite parties received an amount of Rs. 4,00,006/- from the complainant towards sale consideration of the villa on 03-10-2008 evident from Ext. A2 receipt issued by the opposite parties. Admittedly, the opposite parties could not complete the said project in time and at the request of the complainant, the opposite parties agreed to refund the amount received by them from the complainant and issued Ext. A4 letter dated 29-11-2010 to that effect. According to the complainant, in spite of repeated requests and reminders, the opposite parties failed to refund the amount as assured by them. Indisputably, the above conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part and they are liable to refund the amount to the complainant with interest. It was so held by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission in Lakshmi Vatika Ltd. Vs. Ravi Rai Khurana II (2014) CPJ 509 (NC).

5. Point No. ii. :- We have considered the grievances of the complainant and directed the opposite parties to refund the amount with interest. In that view, we think that costs of the proceedings is not called for. Rejected hence.

6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund Rs. 4,10,006/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt til realisation.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26^th day of June 2014.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========