Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/63/2015

A.Sujatha, W/o. A.C. Ravindranath Reddy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Marg Business Park Private Limited, rep. by its Power of Attorney. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

22 Dec 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 15.12.2015

Order Date:22.12.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.63/2015

 

 

Between

 

 

A.Sujatha,

W/o. A.C.Ravindranath Reddy,

D.No.4-109/A, Sathya Sai Nagar,

Sai Nagar Panchayath,

Kesavayanagunta,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                                          … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         M/s. Marg Business Park Private Limited,

            Having registered office at:

            No.4/318, Old Mahabalipuram Road,

            Kottiwakkam,

            Chennai,

            Rep. by its Power of Attorney

            Holder M/s. Marg Limited,

            Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

            Having its Registered Office at 4/318, Old Mahaballipuram Road,

            Kottiwakkam,

            Chennai – 600 041. 

 

2.         M/s. Marg Limited,

            Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

            Kotramangalam village,

            Renigunta Mandal,

            Tiruchanur Off Bypass Road,

            Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 06.12.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing A.Sujatha, party-in-person for complainant, and Sri.N.Manohar, counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections – 12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs against the opposite parties 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.6,25,842/-, 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and hardship, and     3) to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the complaint.   

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:-  that the complainant along with her son A.Vijayasena Reddy, entered into an agreement with opposite parties, to purchase flat No.201 in Vishwashakthi Apartment, Kotramangalam village, for a total consideration of Rs.21,64,556/-, and she has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance on 10.10.2009. The opposite parties agreed to complete the construction of the flat No.201 by December 2010. They also agreed to pay rentals at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. for the total period in the event they failed to complete the construction within the stipulated time. That the opposite parties also agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- per each customer, if the complainant provides such new purchaser. That the complainant in total paid a sum of Rs.22,59,483/- from 16.04.2010 to 31.05.2011 and from 05.03.2012 to 05.09.2013. The opposite parties delivered possession of the flat on 17.07.2015 to the complainant beyond the stipulated period. Therefore, complainant is claiming rentals as agreed with interest and also the amount for joining two other new purchasers, and claiming the costs of the complaint. Hence the complaint

            3.  The opposite party No.1 filed the written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.2. Paras.1 to 16 of the written version is general denial of parawise allegations in the complaint. The opposite parties further contended that the complainant obtained registered sale deed for a semi finished flat on 24.05.2011 vide registered document No.2713/2011. In para.6 of the sale deed, the complainant agreed that she is responsible for payment of sales tax, VAT, service tax or any other similar levy / tax, that may become payable with respect to the sale / construction of the apartments covered under this sale deed. The opposite parties contended that in the said agreement it is mentioned that the total sale consideration is Rs.21,64,556/- as per Annexure-A1. Annexure-A2 shows that she also agreed to pay Club Membership fee of Rs.25,000/-, electricity connection, water and sewage charges of Rs.75,000/- and one car parking for Rs.60,000/- + VAT, service tax, levies, surcharges, cess, stamp duty, registration fee and such other applicable charges etc. as additionally payable by the purchaser. It is also mentioned in the agreement at para No.13.2 that the developer shall not be liable for delays in completion and construction of the apartment due to non-obtainment of approvals / permissions from various statutory authorities, non-availability of cement, steel and other construction materials, strike, labour, boycott, civil commotion or by any act of God, and any Government regulations, notifications from Government or Municipal Authority or Court etc. prohibiting construction activities. They further contended that during the above said period, Government of Andhra Pradesh, issued proceedings prohibiting lifting the sand and also there is shortage of raw materials and there was bundh in connection with bifurcation of the State. Construction of the flat was completed by 12.11.2014 and informed the same to the complainant requesting her to pay the final payment of Rs.1,78,272/- and take possession of the premises. On 17.07.2015, the complainant made final payment of Rs.70,000/- after adjustments and took possession of the flat and also “No Due Certificate” from the opposite parties. The opposite parties also obtained “Possession Delivery Certificate” from complainant. There is no deficiency in service or willful delay on the part of the opposite parties that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            4.  The complainant and opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavits as P.W.1 and R.W.1 and also filed their written arguments. Exs.A1 to A5 marked for the complainant and reported no documents for the opposite parties.

            5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the complainant is entitled for the rental charges at Rs.5/- per

                  sq.ft. per month from January 2011 onwards as alleged?                  

            (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the amounts for introducing new

                   purchasers?

            (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

            (iv)  To what relief?

            6.  Point No.(i):-  in order to prove this point, the complainant has to establish that there was an agreement between the complainant and opposite parties to the effect that the opposite parties agreed to pay rentals @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month, in the event of their failure to deliver possession of the flat by December 2010. The complainant though alleged that herself along with her son Vijayasena Reddy, purchased flat No.201 in Vishwashakthi Apartments, being constructed by the opposite parties and that they have entered into an agreement with the opposite parties, but failed to produce any such agreement in the Forum. The contents of complaint implied that there was an agreement on the date of payment of Rs.50,000/- as advance on 10.10.2009, and the contents thereof discloses that the opposite parties have agreed to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant by December 2010. It also implied that it contains the condition that the opposite parties agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- per a new purchaser, if the complainant introduced any such purchaser. That they also agreed to pay Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month as rental to the complainant in respect of flat No.201, if they failed to deliver the possession after completion of the construction within the time stipulated. In the absence of the said agreement alleged to have been entered into by the complainant with the opposite parties, those conditions cannot be taken into consideration, but they can only be treated as allegations against the opposite parties. As could be seen from the complaint, by December 2010 the complainant has paid only Rs.50,000/- + Rs.2,74,683/- with that amount, the complainant cannot expect that the opposite parties will construct the flat in full fledged manner and deliver the possession to the complainant. The payments admittedly made by the complainant are Rs.50,000/- on 10.10.2009; Rs.2,74,683/- on 16.04.2010; Rs.3,31,177/- on 17.01.2011. So, it is clear that from 16.04.2010 to 17.01.2011, there were no any such payments in between these dates. Another payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was made on 10.05.2011; Rs.2,88,140/- was paid on 14.05.2011 and another sum of Rs.1,95,650/- was paid on 31.05.2011. All these payments, except the advance payment of Rs.50,000/- were made through cheques admittedly. Later the complainant made another payment of Rs.1,48,702/- on 05.03.2012; another sum of Rs.39,500/- was paid on 03.05.2012. Similarly, the complainant also paid Rs.2,98,913/- on 08.11.2011 and another payment of Rs.1,32,718/- was paid on 05.09.2013, these 4 payments were also made through cheques. All these 9 cheques referred to above were made from Chennai, Tiruvanantapuram and Chandragiri etc. places. These payments were not denied by the opposite parties. It clearly shows that when the cost of the property is Rs.21,64,556/- the complainant has made payment of Rs.22,59,483/-. Since the payments were made till 05.09.2013 and there was no any proof that the complainant has given any notice to the opposite parties after December 2010 stating that the opposite parties have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. That apart, the complainant has not paid the entire cost of the flat by December 2010, except Rs.3,24,683/-, by which amount he cannot expect the entire construction of the flat will be completed. According to the opposite parties, there was sale-cum-construction agreement dt:17.04.2010, but for the reasons best known, the opposite parties did not file any scrap of paper, much less the said sale-cum-construction agreement before this Forum, to know the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement. Entire complaint allegations were denied by the opposite parties parawise. As per the sale deed dt:24.05.2011, at page.6, there were some terms and conditions, which were also said to have been agreed by the complainant and obtained the registered sale deed under Ex.A1 (copy of the sale deed). At para.6 of the sale deed bearing document No.2713/2011, the complainant agreed that she is responsible for payment of sales tax, VAT, service tax or any other similar levy/tax that may become payable in respect of the flat. The complainant also agreed to pay the entire sale consideration of Rs.21,64,556/- as shown under Annexure-A1 and also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for Membership; Rs.75,000/- towards electricity connection, water and sewage charges and Rs.60,000/- towards car parking place + VAT, Service tax, levies, surcharges, cess, stamp duty, registration fee and such other applicable charges etc. as shown under Annexure-A2. These are all un-disputed facts. The complainant for the reasons best known did not disclose the date on which she has entered into agreement with the opposite parties and also failed to file the said agreement of sale with terms and conditions, in the Forum. Unless the said agreement is filed, it cannot be said that the opposite parties are liable to pay rentals at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month as claimed. The complainant also failed to mention the total extent of the flat to assess the rentals alleged to have been agreed by the opposite parties to pay to the complainant. Therefore, the claim of rental charges is appears to be baseless and ambiguous. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not established that the opposite parties have agreed to pay rentals at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. from January 2011 onwards. The complainant also failed to establish that the opposite parties agreed to complete the construction and deliver possession of the flat by December 2010. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim rentals from January 2011 onwards. Accordingly this point is answered.

            7.  Point No.(ii):-  in order to prove this point also there is no iota of evidence that the opposite parties have undertaken or agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- per each purchaser to be introduced by the complainant and also no evidence that the complainant has introduced two purchasers by name one A.Krishna Reddy and one Muniraja, as alleged in the complaint. If it is true, the complainant is expected to disclose the details when she has introduced the said two purchasers to the opposite parties and whether any flats were allotted to those new purchasers. In this regard, the complainant stated that some amount was adjusted towards payment to be made by the complainant. Those adjusted amount is out of the amounts to be paid to the complainant for introducing new purchasers. Thus, the complainant also failed to establish this point that she has introduced two new purchasers to the opposite parties for purchasing flats. Therefore, she is also not entitled to claim any amount, much less Rs.71,120/- as claimed in the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered.

            8.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of the discussion made in points 1 and 2, the claim made by the complainant in a sum of Rs.6,25,842/- towards rental charges and the remaining amount is for introducing new purchasers appears to be only allegation and there was no any agreement between the parties. That the complainant has taken possession of the flat and No Due Certificate was also obtained from the opposite parties under Ex.A2. Admittedly, possession of the flat was taken by the complainant on 17.07.2015 without any objection or protest. Therefore, basing on allegations, the claim of the complainant cannot be said as genuine claim and they cannot be awarded. The complainant also failed to establish the relief for grant of damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing alleged mental agony and hardship. In the absence of agreement as alleged by the complainant or the sale-cum-construction agreement dt:17.04.2010, as alleged by the opposite parties, none of these claims can be accepted as genuine, and the complainant failed to establish any of those claims prayed for and therefore in our opinion the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            9.  Point No.(iv):- in view of our discussion on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish any of the claims, and that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 22^nd day of December, 2016.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                        

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  Ayyapaneni Sujatha (Chief Affidavit filed).                 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: M. Muralidharan (Chief Affidavit filed).        

 

             EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s            

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Registered Sale deed Doc.No.2713 Dt: 24.05.2011 filed on 29.11.2016.
	No Due Certificate from Marg Limited. Dt: 17.07.2015.
	Maintenance Charge Customer Copy. Dt: 17.07.2015.
	Payments and Receipts Statements. Customer Id: VISV136816.
	Mail copy of Demand Letters issued by Opposite Parties. Dt: 24.03.2016.

 

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:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.