Date of Filling:      28.07.2015

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  06.07.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT:   THIRU.S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                                 ….PRESIDENT

THIRU:R.BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc.L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.,      …MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.42/2015

FRIDAY, THE 06 DAY OF JULY 2018

P.Satheesh,

S/o.P.L.Narasimhalu,

No.5, Sivagami Ammal Street,

Lakshmi Colony

G.M.Nagar, Ambattur,

Chennai - 53.                                                          ………Complainant.

//Vs//

M/s.Thai Housing(P)Limited,

Rep.by its Chairman,

37/9,M.T.H. Road, Padi,

Chennai - 600 050.                                                    ………opposite party.

The complaint is coming upon before us finally on 29.06.2018 in the presence of Thiru.D.Jawahar, counsel for Complainant,Thiru.J.Tamil Selvam, Counsel for the opposite parties and upon hearing the arguments, and having perused the documents and evidence on both sides, this Forum delivered the following:-

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.S.PANDIAN, PRESIDENT.

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act.1986 against the opposite parties to provide the electricity,water and sewerage connections to the schedule mentioned flat to hand over the certificate copies of necessary documents and to pay a sum  of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for  causing mental agony due to the deficiency in service with cost.

2.The Brief averment of the complaint as follows:-

The complainant entered into a lease-cum-sale Agreement with the opposite party measuring an extent of 283.76 Square Feet of built-up area along with 134.81/6471.25 square feet of undivided share of land in survey Nos. 275/2B & 276, No.26 villangadu pakkam, puzhal Union, Ambatture Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

3. As per the terms and conditions of the above said agreement, the opposite party ought to have execute and register sale deed for the above mentioned flat work completion in all respects on payment of the full amount of Rs.3,75,000/- by the complainant to the opposite party.  Accordingly, the complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.3,75,000/-.

4. Even though, the opposite party had handed over the possession of unfinished flat to the complainant on 05.04.2014 when the complainant made the final payment he could not reside there because of the Electricity and water connections were not provided to the flat and it is still unfinished.  Similarly  even the entire amount had been paid by the complainant, yet the opposite party did not execute and register sale deed in favour of complainant. Whenever he approached the opposite party, he could get dodging replies only.  And his efforts to contact the chairman also proved to be futile.

5. The complainant also paid the registration charges of Rs.20,000/- on 26.04.2014, on the fond hope of getting the sale deed to be registered in his favour but his hopes were dashed and he is left in the lurch by opposite party.

6. After getting the entire amount including the registration and stamp charges, the opposite party is failed to execute the sale deed in favour of complainant, which is a definite deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.  Therefore the complainant issued a legal notice through his counsel to the opposite party on 04.07.2015.  Though received the same by the opposite party on 07.07.2015, he neither complied with the demands of the complainant nor replied to above said legal notice.  Hence the complaint is filed.

7. The contention of written version of the opposite party is briefly as follows:-

The complaint filed by the complainant is totally false, frivolous and tainted with malafide motive.  It is denied that the opposite party handed over the possession of unfinished flat to the complainant on 05.04.2014 when the complainant made the final payment and he could not reside there because the electricity and water connections were not provided to the flat and is still unfinished as alleged by the complainant in his compliant.  In fact, when the date complainant paid the final payment i.e on 05.04.2014, and on that day itself, the opposite party  handed over the flat to the complainant as per the lease cum sale agreement dated 18.07.2012.  When the complainant himself satisfied only, the flat has been handed over him.  As per the lease cum sale agreement concern, the opposite party has offered only construction of flat but not other amenities like water connection, electricity connection and seweage.  Since, the construction of the flat is very minimum budget we could provide only building to the complainant and other purchaser also, other amenities concern the complainant should be obtain himself from the concern authority as his own cost.

8.  In fact, when the complainant paid the final payment on 05.04.2014 itself, the opposite party informed the complainant that he is ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant as agreed by them as per the lease cum sale agreement deed dated 18.07.2013 and further informed to the complainant that the registration, stamp charges and other registration cost will be arrived at a sum of Rs.60,000/-.  Though the opposite party informed the registration charges to the complainant but the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 26.04.2014.  Moreover, the opposite party asked further amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant for registration of the flat No.G-10 and complainant also requested the  opposite party for some more time to arrange the said remaining sum of Rs.40,000/-.  However, the complainant has not paid the said remaining amount to the opposite party and therefore the opposite party could not be registered the sale deed infavour of the complainant.  Despite made several request by the opposite party to the complainant to make such remaining registration charges, which was failed by the complainant.

9. Moreover, the opposite party has acted upon the recital of the agreement and hence there is no negligence service and deficiency on the part of the opposite party.  If the complainant pay the registration as stated in the agreement (Clause8) we are ready execute the dale deed infavour of the complainant.  Since, there is no negligence of service and deficiency, the complainant is not extitled to claim for compensation for mental agony.  At the same time, without any cause of action the present complaint filed by the complainant against us with malafide intention to grab the money from opposite party

10. There is no cause of action and the complainant has no locus standee to file this complaint.  Therefore, the present complaint should be dismissed with exemplary cost.

11. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1to Ex.A8 were marked.  While so, on the side of the opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed and Ex.B1 &ExB5 were marked on their side.

12. At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1.     Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2.     To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

13. Written arguments filed and oral arguments also adduced by both

Sides.

14.Point No:1:-

As per the averments of the complaint, the opposite party has not constructed  the alleged flat as per the terms and conditions of the construction agreement and also the opposite failed to execute the sale deed in favour of complainant, evenafter the  full consideration was paid along with the Registration expenses of Rs.20,000/-as required by the opposite party

15. While so, the opposite party vehemently denied that the allegation made in the complaint are all false and infact, the registration cost will be arrived at a sum of Rs.60,000/- instead of, the complainant has paid only Rs.20,000/- on 26.04.2014 and therefore there is no deficiency of services on the part of the opposite party.

16. At the outset, this Forum has to consider whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint against the opposite party by means of acceptable evidence beyond reasonable doubt.  First of all, on careful perusal of the proof Affidavit of the complainant, it is learnt that on 18.07.2012 the complainant and the opposite party have executed the lease cum sale agreement for the purchase of flat G.10, Sapthagiri Block, Measuring an extent of 283.76 Square Feet  of built up area along with the undivided share of land  is only134.81/1647.25 square feet in survey No.275/2B&276 Villangadu Pakkam village, Thiruvallur District which is marked as Ex.A1. After execution of Ex.A1 the complainant has paid  on different date a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- being the full consideration of the above said flat the relevant receipt are marked as Ex.A5(s).  It is further stated by the complainant that though the opposite party handed over the possession of unfinished flat tome, he could not reside there because, the electricity and water connection were not provided to the flat and it is still unfinished though the entire amount paid by him and also he has paid the registration of Rs.20,000/-on 26.04.2014 the opposite party has not come forward to execute the registered sale deed.  The receipt given by the opposite party for Rs.20,000/- is marked as Ex.A2 and thereby the said act of the opposite party is deficiency of service and  so that the complainant issued a legal notice on 04.07.2015 which is marked as Ex.A3 and the same was received by the opposite party on 07.07.2015 for which acknowledgement card is marked as Ex.A4.  It is further stated that before the legal notice of the complainant to the opposite party, the complainant wrote a letter on 23.06.2015 which is marked as Ex.A6 and the guide line value issued by the Registration department are marked as Ex.A7and Ex.A8.

17. While being so, on going through the evidence of the opposite party it is learnt that on the date of final payment itself, the opposite party had handed over the alleged flat as per the lease cum sale agreement and further stated that as per the Ex.B1 which are one and the same as Ex.A1, they have offered only the construction of flat but not other amenities like water connection, electricity connection and seweage. Since, the construction of the flat is very minimum budget, there is no question of not providing the above amenities and handed over the flat as unfinished.  It is further stated that the opposite party was informed to the complainant that the registration stamp charges and other registration cost will be arrived at Rs.60,000/- but the complainant has paid only Rs.20,000/- on 26.04.2014 and therefore they could not be executed the sale deed registered in favour of the complaint.  Furthermore, it is seen from the Proof Affidavit of the opposite party that on the payment of all charges, the opposite party have promptly executed the registered sale deed in favour of other purchaser viz. Mr.Ramesh, Lalitha which are marked as Ex.B2 to Ex.B5 and hence for non-payment of the balance registration charges only, the sale deed of the complainant could not be registered and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

18. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is crystal clear that it is not disputed by both sides about the Ex.A1 and repayment of full consideration ofRs.3,75,000/- through Ex.A5(s) and similarly the payment of Rs.20,000/- towards  the registration charges by the complainant through Ex.A2 is not disputed.  Further it is an admitted facts the flat was handed over on 05.04.2014 in which date, the final payment of full amount of Rs.3,75,000/- was paid by the complainant.  At this point of time, the contention raised by the opposite party as per the Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 the opposite party have offered only construction of flat but not other amenities like water connection, electricity connection, seweage connection and the second contention is that the complainant has not come forward to pay the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- towards the registration expenses.

19.  In such circumstances, regarding the first contention the opposite party has stated that the ExA1 it is clearly mentioned that they have offered only construction of flat but other amenities whereas the complainant has disputed the same.  At this instance, it is the duty of this Forum to go through the Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 which are one and the same.  There is no such specific class or averments “only construction” found anywhere in the Ex.A1 and ExB1 as narrated by the opposite party.  Per contra it is seen in last para of the Ex.A1and Ex.B1 as below:-

,e;jg;gbf;F ehd; ,uz;lhtJ jug;gpdu; Mfpa ehd; gtu; V[z;l; vd;w xjhtpy; vd; kdg;G+u;tkha; rk;kjpj;J 1-tJ ghu;b kw;Wk; 2-tJ ghu;b Mfpa ehkpUtUk; vOjpf;nfhs;Sk; jha; efu; -2y; mike;Js;s mLf;Fkhb FbapWg;gpd; nyl;bd; ghj;&k; trjpAld; ,ize;j xU tPl;bw;fhd Fj;jif kw;Wk; Rj;j tpf;fpiua xg;ge;jk;.

 So, there is a clear recitals about the provision of latrine, Both Room etc., Therefore, the plea taken by the opposite party that the complainant offered only construction of house but not for other amenities as per Ex.A1and Ex.B1 becomes futile since there is no such averments or recitals in Ex.A1and Ex.B1.  More so, this Forum wants to say that in the common language, the construction of a house means, it is fulfilled with all basic amenities like latrine, both room, water connection, electricity connection etc., without this amenities one man cannot live in that house.  Hence there is no meaning in the version of the opposite parties and such plea taken by the opposite parties holds not good.  Further more, in this regard the burden of prove is on the shoulder of the opposite party but the same has been not proved by means of relevant evidence.  An this point of time, this forum has without any hesitation come to conclusion that the opposite party has not constructed the house of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the construction agreement and handed over the same as unfinished without providing the above said basic amenities.  Such act of the opposite parties clearly amounts for deficiency of service as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act 1986.

20. The next contention placed before this Forum on the side of the opposite party is that because of not paying the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- towards the cost of registration as required by him  he could not execute the register sale deed in favour of complainant.  In respect of this contention, on careful perusal of the evidence and documents it is an admitted fact that the complainant has paid Rs.20,000/- on 26.04.2014 itself through Ex.A2.   At this juncture, if the opposite party has informed that the cost of registration charge amounts of Rs.60,000/- it is the duty to prove the same.  But no such documents produced before this forum on his side, which clearly shows that such stand taken by the opposite party is ended in vain.

21. While being so, the opposite party has filed Ex.B2to Ex.B5.  From which also there is no evidence to show that the registration needs Rs.60,000/-.  In such circumstances, this Forum has to be taken into consideration, the documents produced on the side of the complainant which are marked as ExA7 and Ex.A8 issued by the Registration department.  Therefore, the opposite party failed to prove the required registration expenses to the tune of Rs.60,000/-.  Hence, the contention raised by the opposite party without the payment of the balance amount of Rs.40,000/-  he could not register the sale deed, cannot be acceptable one.  Therefore, having received the full consideration for the construction of flat as per the Ex.A1and Ex.B1 and also Rs.20,000/- towards registration from the complainant the opposite party shall bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the alleged flat .  But the opposite parties failed to do so, despite of repeated demands by the complainant which certainly leads  to the deficiency service of the opposite party and also it certainly caused mental agony, monetory loss have to be compensated has made in the complaint.

22. In the light of the above facts observations and circumstances, this Forum come to conclusion that the complainant has clearly proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties by means of acceptable and reliable evidence.  Thus, the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

23. Point No:2:-

As discussed above in the point No.1, it is crystal clear that the opposite party has not constructed the alleged flat by providing basic amenities viz., electricity, water, seweage connection and also failed to furnished necessary documents and also not come forward to execute the register sale deed in favour of the complainant which clearly shows the deficiency of service of the opposite party which certainly caused mental agony and monetary loss of the complainant and the same has to be compensated.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the above said relief with reasonable compensation and cost. Thus, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the opposite party is directed  to provide the electricity , water and seweage connection on obtaining the necessary sanction to the schedule mentioned flat as per the prescribed norms and also to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the schedule mentioned property within a month from the date of this order i/e 06.07.2018 along with the necessary documents and also to pay sum of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony due to the  deficiency of service committed by the opposite party and with cost of Rs.5,000/-. 

The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open Forum of this 06^th  July 2018.

          -Sd-                                                                                              -Sd-

                  MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

     -Sd-                                                                                                   -Sd-

MEMBER                                                                    PRSIDENT