Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/267/2012

R.Kasthuri - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. ISH Foundations - Opp.Party(s)

T.Ramkumar

09 Mar 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   05.11.2012 

                                                                        Date of Order :   09.03.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II                              C.C.NO.267/2012

         FRIDAY THIS  9^TH  DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

R. Kasthuri,

W/o. Mr.N.Gunapathy,

Flat-D, New Tech Li Lack,

No.19/55, Venkatesa Nagar,

I Street Extension I,

Virugambakkam,

Chennai 600 092.                                               .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

M/s. ISH Foundations,

Rep. by its CMD & Authorized Signatory,

Mrs. M.Subhathra,

No.24, Varadarajpet Main Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai 600 024.                                      .. Opposite party.

 

Counsel for Complainant      :    M/s. T.Ramkumar       

Counsel for opposite party   :    Exparte.

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to refund a sum of Rs.5,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that she had interested to purchase a flat in a housing project namely “Karuna Shine” launched by the opposite party at Plot No.4, Kavingnar Kannadasan Main Road, Ramapuram.   When the complainant approached the opposite party on 30.7.2012 in its office she was given assurance that necessary plan and other approvals had already been obtained from concerned government authorities and the flats are free from encumbrance and they have got proper title deeds in respect of the above project.   The complainant further state that on believing the words of the opposite party and in order to purchase a flat in the name of her son in law Mr.S.Radhakrishnan, the complainant had paid the booking amount of Rs.5,000/- by way of cheque No.045761 dated 30.7.2012 drawn on Canara Bank, Mahila Branch, Chennai in favour of the opposite party.  Further the complainant state that  since she was advised that the documents provided by the opposite party, especially the settlement deed to show the title were not legally acceptable, she had decided to cancel the booking of the flat with the opposite party. The complainant contacted the opposite party through phone and in person on 12.9.2012 to cancel the booking of the flat and requested to refund the deposit amount.   The opposite party failed to refund the deposit amount of Rs.5000/- as agreed by the opposite party.    Therefore the complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.9.2012 to the opposite party calling upon them to refund the deposit amount of Rs.5,000/-; the opposite party has sent no reply.   As such the act of the opposite party is amount to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

2.     Inspite of receipt of notice the opposite party  did not appear before this forum and therefore the opposite party was  set exparte.  

3.     Though the  opposite party  remained exparte this  Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this forum. 

4.     In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as her evidence, and also Ex.A1  &  Ex.A2  are marked. 

5.   The points for the consideration is: 

Whether the complainant is entitled to refund a sum of Rs.5,000/- paid as advance and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- as prayed for ?

6.   ON POINT:

        Opposite party remained exparte.   Perused the records (viz) complaint, proof affidavit and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that the opposite party launched a housing project namely “Karuna Shine” at  Plot No.4, Kavingnar Kannadasan Main Road, Annai Sathya Nagar Extension, Ramapuram.  Further the contention of the complainant is that she approached the opposite party on 30.7.2012 in its office and showed her  interest to purchase a flat; the opposite party also gave an assurance that necessary plan approval obtained from the Government authorities and the flats are free from encumbrance.  Hence the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards advance booking amount by way of cheque No.04561, dated 30.7.2012, drawn on Canara bank, Mahila Branch, Chennai in favour of opposite party.   The opposite party issued receipt in the name of complainant’s son in law namely Mr. Radhakrishnan.  But the complainant has not produced any record to prove neither the cheque belongs to the complainant nor Mr.Radhakrishnan her son in law.   Further the contention of the complainant is that upon a legal scrutiny she came to understand that the documents provided to her do not testify the assurance given by the opposite party and the settlement deed to show the title.  Hence the complainant decided to cancel the booking of the flat and requested to return the amount.  Since the opposite party has not returned the amount the complainant issued legal notice Ex.A2 for which there is no reply.   Therefore the complainant  filed this case for refund of the said amount of Rs.5,000/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  On a careful perusal of the complaint and the records it is apparently clear from the receipt Ex.A1 that the amount is received from Mr. One Radhakrishnan by way of cheque No.04561, dated 30.7.2012, drawn on Canara bank, Mahila Branch, Chennai in favour of opposite party.   The complainant has not produced any document to prove that she has issued the cheque to the opposite party and was duly acknowledged by the opposite party.   Equally the complainant has not produced any document related to the alleged flat.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to claim any reliefs sought for in this case and the point is answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.  

          Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  9^th day  of  March  2018. 

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                           PRESIDENT

 

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  30.7.2012       - Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A2-  24.9.2012       - Copy of legal notice.

Opposite party’s side document: -     ..Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                           PRESIDENT