Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/32/2016

E.V. Srinivasan, S/o Late S.Venkatraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dreamz Infra India Pvt. Ltd., (A company incorporated under companies Act), Rep. by its Managing - Opp.Party(s)

M.Vani, P.Murali Krishnareddy

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:-13-04-2016                                                                                                               Order Date:  15-09-2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T. Anitha, Member

 

       THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND

AND SIXTEEN

C.C.No.32/2016

Between

E.V.Srinivasan,

S/o. Late S. Venkataraman,

Hindu, aged about 54 years,

Residing at D.No. 10-15-189/K4,

Kotakommala Layout,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.                                                               … Complainant

 

And

M/s. Dreamz Infra India Pvt. Ltd.,

(a company incorporated under companies Act)

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Disha Choudhary,

Having head office at No. 577/B,

2^nd Floor, Outer Ring Road,

Teachers Colony, Koramangala,

Near Silk Board, Banglore – 560 034.                                          … Opposite party

 

           This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 01.09.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and opposite party and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Smt.M.Vani, counsel for the complainant and opposite party is remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

          This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- which was paid by the complainant to the opposite party as a part of sale consideration for the purchase of flat along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the execution of memorandum of understanding i.e. 20.12.2013, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards rectification of defective work, to directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant to pay costs of the complaint.

           2. The brief facts of the case are:  The opposite party is involved in construction business under the name and style of M/s. Dreamz Infra India Pvt.Ltd., and they offered for sale of unfinished flat in a proposed apartment to the complainant with a sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- under the name of Suvidha Supreme Dreamz, Sarjapura Road, Radha Reddy Layout, Banglore and a booking form bearing No.1794 dt.14.07.2012 was issued to the complainant and in the said booking form, it was clearly mentioned that the said flat which was proposed to be  purchased by the complainant shall include car parking and such other amenities and will be situated in the ground floor. The complainant further submits that he paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party and the receipt was issued by the opposite party for the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and also the complainant paid Rs.6,50,000/- towards part payment in the form of post dated cheque which was later encashed by the opposite party on 26.07.2012. Subsequently the opposite party executed the memorandum of understanding in favour of the complainant in the month of August 2012. And as per the terms and conditions in the said memorandum of understanding the opposite party had clearly admitted that they will register 3BHK Flat measuring 1300 sq.ft. in the name of Dreamz Suvidha Supreme.

          3. Later the opposite party has stated that the said project could not be grounded and they have offered to swap the complainant into another project by the name of Suvidha with same measurement and also the opposite party issued cancellation letter to the complainant. Subsequently the opposite party informed the complainant the swapped flat will be costing Rs.33,00,000/- instead of the agreed cost of Rs.30,00,000/- and an approval form dt.20.12.2013 was given to the complainant. In the said approval form it was clearly mentioned that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- by the date of 20.12.2013 and on the same date the opposite party executed another memorandum of understanding. As per the said memorandum of understanding  the sale consideration was mentioned as 33,00,000/- to be paid in installments and as agreed by the complainant had been paying such money and as on 20.10.2013 he paid an amount  of Rs.8,50,000/- and on 22.05.2014 he had transferred an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- through online from Tirupati to the opposite party. Hence the complainant totally paid a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- to the opposite party towards the purchase of the said flat. As per the terms and conditions of the said memorandum of understanding, at clause (5) the time specification was fixed for 20 months for hand over the possession of the flat to the complainant from the date of MOU or the completion of the entire transaction, whichever is earlier. There was also mentioned as another extension of three months time and in case of further delay, the opposite party had agreed to pay monthly rent to the complainant.  But the opposite party much against the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum of understanding has not handed over the said flat to the complainant. Whenever the complainant had tried to contact the opposite party, they had been evading the complainant and failed to give the response to him.   

          4. The complainant further submits that in the month of January, 2016 he himself visited the opposite party and he was told by the office staff that his flat was already for occupation and the flat no.506 was allotted to him and asked him to make payment of Rs.2,80,000/-. The complainant insisted upon visiting the said flat before making payment and he shocked that he could not find flat no.506 in the apartment and under the name of Dreamz Suvidha when he asked the opposite party it was represented to him that the flat no.506 will be constructed subsequently.  The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- to the opposite party and he was eagerly waiting to occupy the flat in the proposed construction and due to violation of the agreed terms and conditions in the memorandum of understanding executed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant on 20.12.2013, they have committed default and subjected to the complainant to monetary loss and mental agony which is nothing but deficiency of service on part of the opposite party.  At last the complainant issued a legal notice on dt.09.02.2016 calling upon the opposite party to register the said flat, after receipt of the same the opposite party issued reply notice dt.16.2.2016 calling the complainant for settlement. In spite of several attempts made by the complainant to contact the opposite party for amicable settlement but the opposite party failed to contact the complainant and evade the complainant which is nothing but deficiency of service. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint.

        5. Notice served to opposite party. Opposite party failed to appear before this Forum even after receipt of the notice. Hence opposite party called absent and set exparte.

         6.  The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex.A1to A7 were marked. Written arguments of the complainant filed and oral arguments were heard.

        7.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i)  Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite party    

                     towards the complainant?            

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?            

             (iii)  To what Result?

          8. Point No:-(i).   The main case of the complainant  is that the opposite party is doing construction business and they offered sale of unfinished flat  to the complainant  in the venture of the opposite party under the name and style of Suvidha Supreme Dreamz in Banglore which costs of Rs.30,00,000/-  hence he booked a flat in the above said apartment and he paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards booking charges and obtain a receipt i.e. Ex.A1 and also she paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to the opposite party on 26.07.2012 and subsequently the MOU was executed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant in the month of August, 2012 and in the said understanding it was clearly mentioned that the proposed 3BHK flat measuring 1300 Sq.Ft in the proposed apartment by name Dreamz Suvidha Supreme. 

           Later the opposite party stated that the above said venture which was offered by them could not be grounded and they offer to swap the complainant in to an another project by name Suvidha which will be of same measurement and also the opposite party issued cancellation letter to the complainant and subsequently the opposite party informed that the above said swapped flat will be costing of Rs.33,00,000/- instead of agreed cost of Rs.30,00,000/- and an approval form date 20.12.2013 was handed over to the complainant.  And in the said approval form it was clearly mentioned that they have received Rs.8,50,000/- from the complainant towards part sale consideration . Again the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 22.05.2014 through online transfer to the opposite party and in order to prove payment the complainant got marked Ex.A7, bank statement of account of complainant. Hence the complainant totally paid Rs.12,50,000/- to the opposite party towards the purchase of the flat. As per the terms and conditions of the said flat the complainant will hand over the flat to the complainant within 20 months from the date of MOU otherwise they will pay rent to the complainant. But the opposite party failed to hand over the flat to the complainant even after repeated requests made by the complainant. In the month of January, 2016 the complainant himself personally visited the opposite party, but the opposite party office staff was stated that the flat was ready for occupation when he asked them to visit the said flat no.506 which was allotted to him they have insisted him to make the payment of Rs.2,80,000/-. But the complainant insisted upon the visiting the said flat before making such payment and to his shock and disbelief the complainant could not find flat no.506 in the apartment under the name of Dreamz Suvidha. When the complainant questioned them, they have stated that the flat no.506 will construct subsequently. Hence the complainant issued legal notice on 09.02.2016 Ex.A.5 to the opposite party after receipt of the said notice the opposite party gave reply notice on 16.02.2016 under Ex.A6 calling upon the complainant for settlement. But even after several attempts made by the complainant to settle the matter the opposite party failed to turn up and settle the issue.  The opposite party is remained exparte and unchallenged the contentions of the complainant which is nothing but admitting the case of the complainant.  That itself clearly shows the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party. The interest shown by the opposite party while promoting their sales is not shown at the time of rendering service. Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite party towards the complainant.

           9. Point No:-(ii).  In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant being a consumer, having paid a sum of Rs.12,50,000 /- towards part payment of the cost of the flat in the proposed construction of apartment constructed by the opposite party. The opposite party failed to register and handed over the flat or refund the amount to the complainant even after several requests made by him. Hence the complainant is entitled to refund an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- (rupees twelve lakh fifty thousand only) with interest 9%p.a from the date of last payment i.e.22.05.2014 till realization. The complainant is also entitled of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for  mental agony and deficiency of service suffered by the complainant.  Accordingly this point is answered.

          10.Point (iii):-    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- (rupees twelve lakh fify thousand only)which was received by the opposite party as a part of sale consideration along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of last payment i.e. 22.05.2014 till realization. The opposite party further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only)  towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service and to pay Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The opposite party further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) shall also carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.                                                                                                  

          Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 15^th day of September, 2016.

         Sd/-                                                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                       

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Emakulam Venkatraman Srinivasan (Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Booking Form Dt: 14.07.2012.
	Receipts in Original. (4 in Numbers).
	Memorandum of understanding in Original. Dt: 20.12.2013.
	Demand Notice issued by the Opposite Party (Original). Dt: 09.05.2014.
	Office copy of Legal Notice with Ack. Dt: 09.02.2016.
	Served copy of Reply Notice and Cover. Dt: 16.02.2016.
	True copies of Account Statement of Complainant.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

                                                                                                                                      Sd/-

                    President

 

 

                                                                 // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                 Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati

 

 

Copies to:  The Complainant.

                  The Opposite party.