Kerala

StateCommission

CC/11/22

Eswara Pillai Premachendran Nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Apple A Day Properties - Opp.Party(s)

S.Reghu Kumar

29 Sep 2011

ORDER

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/22
 
1. Eswara Pillai Premachendran Nair
Prem Nivas,Veroor,Madukkummoodu,Changanacherry,Kottayam
Kottayam
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Apple A Day Properties
Apple Tower,Palarivattom,Edappally,Kochi
Ernakulam
Kerala
2. K.A Saju,The MD
Apple Tower,Palarivattom,Edappally,Kochi
Ernakulam
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

CC.22/11

JUDGMENT DATED 29.09.2011

PRESENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER

 

 Eswara Pillai Premachandran Nair,

S/o Eswara Pillai,

Prem Nivas, Veroor, P.O.686 106                    --  COMPLAINANT

Madukkummoodu,  Changanacherry,

Kottayam District, Kerala.

   (By Adv.  S.Reghukumar)

 

                   Vs.

 

1.      M/s.Apple A Day Properties

Apple Tower, Palarivattom,

Edappally, Kochi – 24.

2.      Mr.K.A.Saju,                                              --  RESPONDENTS

Managing Director

--do-   -do-

 

                                      JUDGMENT                          

                                     

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

 

          The complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service with respect to the agreements for purchase of flats from the opposite parties.

 

 

          2. It is the case the complainant that altogether he has paid a sum of Rs.11,00,300/- for the flat in Apple Suit Flats flat complex proposed to be constructed by the opposite parties.  It was the cost of the flat depletes by the opposite parties.  It was agreed to hand over the flat after construction on 23.11.08.  So far, the agreement has not been complied with.  The complainant has also paid a sum of Rs.6,36,408/- towards a studio apartment in Big Apple Apartment.  It was agreed to hand over the flat on 30.6.10.  The complainant has complied  with all the conditions of the agreement.   So far the flat has not been hand over. 

          3. The opposite parties stood ex-parte. 

4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.P1 to P12 documents were marked.

          5. We find that the complainant has produced the payment receipts and the relevant agreements.  There is no contra-evidence.  It is submitted by the complainant that the Big Apple Apartment consisting of studio apartment had not been started out.  

 

          6. In the circumstances the complaint is allowed as follows –

          “The opposite parties are directed to hand over Flat No.D – 131 in the third floor of the Apple Suit Flats to the complainant after completion within one month from the date of this order  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakh as compensation.  The opposite parties are ordered to refund the amount paid with respect to the studio apartment ie; Rs.6,36,408/- with interest at 12% from the date of deposit.   The complainant will also be entitled for cost of Rs.5,000/-”.

 

          The complaint is allowed as above.

 

 

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR --  MEMBER

 

Corrected as per order   in IA.1667/11  dated 22.12.11

 

      

 

 

 

 
 
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.