DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2023.                                                                                             

                           Filed on: 15/01/2016

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member

C.C. No:  35/2016

COMPLAINANT

Abdul Wahab, S/o. Abdul Rahiman, Valiyara House, Door No. 1/258, Fort Kochi. Kochi-682001.

(Rep. by M/s Chaly Associates, R. Sanjith, Jasmin Baby K. Sindhu Krishnah.C.S, Lekshmi Ramakrishnan and Emmanuel Tony, 40/1677, First Floor, Choolackal Buildings, Market Road, Kochi -11.

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

M/s. Prestige Property Management & Service, 303, Copper Arc No. 83, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560001 Represented by its authorized signatory.

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

          The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, the complainant is the owner of Apartment No. 6093 in Tower 6, Peach Blue, Prestige Neptune's Courtyard, Marine Drive, as per a sale deed executed by M/s Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. The complainant received an email from the Facility Manager of Prestige Neptune's Courtyard, directing him to remit an amount of Rs.94,007/- as alleged maintenance charges. The complainant disputes the legality and excessive nature of these demands and argues that he is not liable to pay any amount to the opposite party. The maintenance charges are calculated based on the square footage of each owner's apartment, which the complainant deems unreasonable and illogical. The complainant further alleges that the opposite party is acting with malafide intentions and has unlawfully displayed his name on a public notice board, damaging his reputation. Despite the complainant's efforts to resolve the matter, no positive action has been taken by the opposite party.

The complainant requests the District Commission to grant the following:

1. Withdrawal of the demand of Rs. 94,007/- for alleged maintenance charges on Apartment No. 6093.
2. Fixing the maintenance rate in line with other apartment complexes in Marine Drive, Ernakulam.
3. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for reputation damage, mental agony, inconveniences, and hardship.
4. An award directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 25,000/- as the cost of the legal proceedings.

2).  Notices

The Commission sent a notice to the opposite party. Although the opposite party received the notice, they failed to submit their version within the required timeframe as mandated by law.

3). Evidence

The complainant had produced proof affidavit and 3 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 and A-3. The complainant was examined as  PW-I.

Exhibit-A-1. A true copy of the Email communication along with the attached documents issued to the complainant by the opposite party.

Exhibit- A-2. Office copy of the Lawyer Notice issued by the complainant.

Exhibit- A-3. Postal Acknowledgment card evidencing receipt of the said lawyer notice by the opposite party.

4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
3. Costs of the proceedings if any?

5)      The issues mentioned above are considered together and are        answered as follows:

          The complainant alleges that opposite party unlawfully displayed the complainant’s name on the public notice board, resulting in reputation harm to the complainant.

The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is the owner of Apartment No. 6093 in Tower 6, Peach Blue, Prestige Neptune's Courtyard, Marine Drive, as per sale deed No.3906/12 executed by M/s Prestige Estate Projects Ltd, Drive, as evidenced by sale deed No.3906/12 executed by M/s Prestige Estate Projects Ltd.

The complainant received an email from the Facility Manager, Prestige Neptune Courtyard, instructing him to pay Rs.94,007/- to the opposite party's account at City Bank, Bangalore (Exhibit A-1). The complainant disputes this demand, asserting that they are not obligated to pay and that the maintenance calculation based on square footage is excessive and unjustifiable. The opposite party unlawfully displayed the complainant's name on a public notice board, resulting in reputational harm. The complainant alleges that the opposite party's actions are driven by malicious intent, causing significant mental distress and irreversible harm. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the matter, no response has been received from the Facility Manager. The complainant, feeling unjustly treated by the mentioned actions, sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party, which was received on 09/11/2015. However, the opposite party has not responded to the notice or addressed the lawful requests made by the complainant (Exhibits A2 and A3).

The complainant seeks the withdrawal of the maintenance charge demand, a fair maintenance rate aligned with other apartment complexes in the area, Rs. 50,000/- in compensation for reputational damage and mental distress, and requests the opposite party to bear the cost of the legal proceedings, amounting to Rs. 25,000/-.

The learned counsel representing the opposite party stated that the complainant is the owner of a specific apartment in a residential complex called Prestige Neptune's Courtyard. The opposite party was responsible for the maintenance of the complex until the owners formed their own association. The charges in question were for the maintenance of the common areas, which are shared among all apartment owners based on the size of their units. The opposite party denies the complainant's allegations of illegal and excessive demands and claims that the complainant was aware of and previously paid the maintenance charges without objection. They argue that the complainant is obligated to pay the charges and that the opposite party has no role in determining the rates as they are fixed by the owners' association. The opposite party also highlights the luxurious facilities and amenities provided in the complex and denies any wrongdoing or intention to harm the complainant's reputation. They conclude by stating that the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought and should be held liable for the costs incurred in this litigation.

When asked during the cross-examination if the complainant was informed about the requirement to pay the advance payment charge while taking possession, the complainant replied that they had paid the amount of Rs. 160,056 for two years. When questioned about the payment of maintenance charges from 1st October 2013 to 31st October 2013, the complainant replied 'Yes'. The complainant affirmed their understanding that this payment was for maintenance charges and confirmed their membership in the owners' association.

1. When asked during the cross-examination if the complainant was informed about the requirement to pay the advance payment charge while taking possession, the complainant stated that they had indeed paid the amount of Rs. 160,056 for a duration of two years. This suggests that the complainant acknowledges making the advance payment charge.
2. When questioned about the payment of maintenance charges from 1st October 2013 to 31st October 2013, the complainant responded with a 'Yes'. This indicates that the complainant confirms having made the payment for maintenance charges during the specified period.
3. The complainant affirmed their understanding that the payment they made was indeed for maintenance charges. This suggests that the complainant acknowledges and comprehends that the payment was specifically for maintenance expenses.
4. The complainant also confirmed their membership in the owners' association. This implies that the complainant asserts being a member of the association associated with the property.

Based on the deposition of PW1, it can be observed that the complainant willingly and without any objection paid the maintenance charges for the period from 1st October 2013 to 31st October 2013. The payment was made at a rate of Rs. 3/- per square feet.

Furthermore, it is observed that the complainant had also paid a substantial amount of Rs. 160,056/- as advance maintenance charges for a period of two years when taking possession. This indicates the complainant's intention to fulfil their obligations and responsibilities towards maintenance expenses associated with the property.

The Commission therefore made a thorough probe into the documents filed by the complainant and examined the depth of allegations made by the complainant.

The following points are to be verified to come to an inference in the matter.

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?
2. If so the amount of compensation?
3. Cost of proceedings?

The overall verification of the documents and also the depositions made by the complainant it is seen that the complainant have miserably failed to prove the allegations raised by him in the complaint. Hence Point No. 1 is against the complainant and hence we don’t have analysed Point No. 2 and 3 and therefore the following order are issued.

O R D E R

Since the complainant has not proved his case on merit, the complaint is only to be dismissed and therefore the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th of June, 2023 .

Sd/-  

D.B.Binu, President

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                          V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

                                                         Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE

Exhibit-A-1. A true copy of the Email communication along with the attached documents issued to the complainant by the opposite party.

Exhibit- A-2. Office copy of the Lawyer Notice issued by the complainant.

Exhibit- A-3. Postal Acknowledgment card evidencing receipt of the said lawyer notice by the opposite party.

OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                   

kp/

                                                                                                CC No. 35/2016

                                                                                Order dated: 30/06/2023