Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
CC/280/2016
D.Lingappa - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s.Arihant, Unitech Reality Projest Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)
Party in Person
08 Jun 2022
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed : 11.08.2016
Date of Reservation : 12.05.2022
Date of Order : 08.06.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 280/2016
WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JUNE 2022
Mr.D.Lingappa, M/A 65 yrs,
Old NO.54, New No.32,
Abiramapuram 3rd Street,
Alwarpet,Chennai-600 018. ... Complainant
..Versus..
M/s ARIHANT – UNITECH Reality Projects Ltd.,
Rep. by Managing Directors,
Having its Registered Office at
Old No.25, New No.3, Ganapathy Colony,
III lane, Cenotaph Road,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Opposite Party
******
For the Complainant : Mr.D. Lingappa, Party in Person
Counsel for the Opposite Party : M/s. A. Shamsudeen Raja
On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of both, we delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,
- The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for having caused tension and mental agony to the Complainant by selling plot No.156 which is shown as road in DTCP layout plan and direct the Opposite Party to secure certified approved lay out plan from CMDA at an early date and make the title perfect to the property and to pay interest of Rs.1,09,469/- calculated 18% rate of interest compounded at quarterly rest for keeping Complainant’s money Rs.1,50,000/- with out any justification for over 3 years and also to refund Rs.1,50,000/- paid by Complainant cancelling the club house membership of the Complainant along with cost.
2. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties have jointly ventured in the name of “ARIHANT – UNITECH REALTY PROJECTS LTD” promoted a “GATED COMMUNITY” in the name and style of “GREEN WOOD CITY” at Navalur, Off. OMR THE CONCEPT OF THE PROJECT was, the promoters would buy agriculture land at Navalur – Off OMR in Multiples of acres and sub-divide it into 500 and odd RESIDENTIAL PLOTS of 1800 – 2400 and more sq. feet in sizes and develop the plots, laying black top roads, making botanical parks, providing street lights, 24 hours security, drinking water, STP drainage system and finally secure DTCP approval for the layout and call it a gated community and sell the plots alone to the prospective private individuals. The individuals who purchase plot in Green Wood City may construct independent villa houses thereon in the style and design they prefer to, paying monthly maintenance for the services rendered by the promoter on pro-rata basis in accordance to land holding at the rate of Rs.1.50 per sq.ft. the Promoter – Opposite Party peculiarly has made “conditional sale” of all these plots to the various purchasers, assuring everyone in sale agreement and final Registered sale deed that they are going to promote a CLUB HOUSE with in the “Green Wood City” and every purchaser of plot shall invariably become a permanent member of the club house paying Rs.1,50,000/- towards membership fee. (This membership of club house is only transferable once property is re-sold by the purchaser to any outsiders not cancelable) no option for purchaser given to opt out of this clause/condition. After the club house start functioning, the member of the club house has to pay monthly subscription to the club which will be fixed by the promoter from time to time. The Complainant herein had seen a skeleton advertisement in popular English daily news paper in the year 2012 made by the Opposite Party inviting the prospective purchasers of plots in their project. The Complainant is 65 years old senior citizen and a practicing advocate at Chennai. The Complainant was impressed seeing the project from popular brand Arihant – Unitech and the dazzling advertisement of “Gated Community” and 24 hours security keeping in view the present day scenario of insecurity for senior citizens. Therefore the Complainant had decided to but a plot in this project and build a house and spend his retirement life peacefully. And for which, the Complainant did not even mind to pay the unwarranted additional burden of compulsorily becoming member of club house promoted by the Opposite Party paying membership fee of Rs.1,50,000/- and recurring monthly subscription fee thereto too. The Complainant did not go in depth verifying the voluminous documents of the larger extent of agriculture land property and other multi various sub-divisions of plots and other planning details. For the face of the company the Complainant trusted the words of the promoter – Opposite Party and entered into agreement of sale for plot No.156 with the Opposite Party on 15th day of July 2012 for purchase of 2223 sq.ft of vacant plot in “GREEN WOOD CITY - Navalur” for a sale consideration of Rs.70 lakhs inclusive of registration expenses and completed the sale on 01.04.2013 under Regd Doc No.4360 of 2013 on the file of SRO Tiruporur – Kanchipuram District. This Rs.70 lakhs is only for land and Registration alone. After purchase of plot, the Complainant had put up a villa house on the plot No.156 so purchased. On completion of construction of house the Complainant realized that there is hardly any security provided by the Opposite Party despite they collect maintenance expenses for the same. As the Complainant’s house was twice burgled there is a sense of insecurity, the Complainant has not moved to the newly built house after investing huge amount in this residential house. Though the Complainant not condoned the said act of Opposite Party and had highlighted the happenings in the complaint, inspite of having collected huge amount towards maintenance.
The Opposite Party has provided a broacher to all purchasers before selling plots. Which contained a diagram / sketch showing plots, roads and gardens in “Green Wood City” project, beside other descriptions. Based on that sketch and verification of plots physically at site, the plots were purchased by all. Only at the time of registration of sale of plot, the Opposite Party has handed over the true copy of site plan approved by DTCP Chengelpet under No.54 of 2010 to all buyers. The registrar office was not the place for the Complainant to check the plan with the physical location of plots at site. After registration when the Complainant went to site and cross checked. The plot Nos.13,14, 35 to 44, and 156 to 159 and 183 shown DTCP APPROVAL PLAN OF 54/2010 are sanctioned as 40 feet wide road and were gifted to Panchayath by gift deed. The plot No.156 was sold to the Complainant herein. Therefore complainant is personally affected by the title to the property. This was immediately brought to the notice of the Opposite Party. Who took it very casually and replied, it is only a minor error and assured of getting revised sanction plan from DTCP soon. But 4 years have passed since reporting to Opposite Party, nothing materialized, despite several personal reminders. The revised plan was not secured from DTCP by the Opposite Party. The Complainant who is 65 years old now has put in his hard earned money in this plot and constructed a villa house too for his retired life, hoping revised DTCP approved plan will be secured by the Opposite Party. But not. This caused untold misery and mental agony at his old age to the complainant. The Opposite Party is not bothered about it. Four years have passed, still the Complainant gives false hopes that he will be get revised sanctioned plan from DTCP. When checked at DTCP office no application was received at their end from the Opposite Party. This error is not minor one. This is a major deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore the Opposite Party has to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/- for the agony suffered by the Complainant for 4 years and the Opposite Party has to get a revised approval plan from DTCP authorities at the earliest as per the physical possession of plot at the site and make the title perfect. The Complainant has made conditional sale of plots in “Green Wood City to all the owners and as such to the Complainant too. The condition was, the purchasers of plots have to compulsorily become member of club house paying membership fee of Rs.1,50,000/-. The club house will be built at future date inside the “Green Wood City” by the Opposite Party was the assurance of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has collected club house membership fee of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Complainant on 3rd day of July 2013 itself even before laying a single brick as foundation stone for the club house building. The Opposite Party while executing registered sale deed has covenanted that “THE VENDOR HAVE AGREED TO COMPLETE THE CLUB HOUSE ON or BEFORE 30.06.2014”. Three years have passed by, since the Opposite Party collected Rs.1,50,000/- from Complainant and 2 years have lapsed from the date the Opposite Party covenanted for completion of club house. But till date it is not completed. Thereby the money of the Complainant Rs.1,50,000/- is lying idle with the Complainant for over 3 years. Whereas, the Opposite Party in their agreement for sale of plot with all the purchasers have inserted a clause that interest at the rate of 18% per annum compounded quarterly at rest, will be collected from the purchasers by the Opposite Party for the overdue amount payable by the purchasers to the Opposite Party. In the Complainant’s case, the Complainant’s money Rs.1,50,000/- remain idle with the Opposite Party for over 3 years. Therefore ON PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY the Opposite Party has to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum compounded at quarterly rest to the Complainant for the Rs.1,50,000/- rest with the Opposite Party from 3rd day of July 2013 to till date. Which interest works out to Rs.1,09,469/- till date of filing and further interest also shall be paid till date of realization. This too amounts to gross negligence and deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.
3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party is as follows:-
The contention of the Opposite Party is that there is absolutely no deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant and in fact no prima facie case has been made out by the Complainant warranting entertainment of the complaint by this Hon’ble Commission. The complaint has been preferred with an ulterior motive to reap unlawful gains upon the back of this Opposite Party. It is reputed firm in the construction business and in the real estate industry and focused on providing quality projects. In fact, this Opposite Party’s projects and efforts have been appreciated nationally by various industry bodies. It is submitted that the Directorate of Town & Country planning, Chengalpet had approved 252 plots on Non-Agricultural land vide DTCP.No.54/2010. Subsequently, the plots have been sold by this Opposite Party at various intervals to prospective buyers. The agreement of sale for plot No.156 on 15.07.2012 for a total consideration of Rs.70 lakhs for the land alone inclusive of registration charges which culminated into a sale deed dated 01.04.2013 were accepted as correct. However, the averment that the Complainant had not go into in-depth verification of the documents before purchasing the plot is vehemently denied as false. Being a lawyer by profession, the Complainant ensured that he had received all the relevant papers from this Opposite Party and had satisfied himself on all the legal aspects before entering into the afore said agreement of sale and the subsequent sale deed. The said satisfaction was reflected in clause 20 & 23 of the agreement of sale dated 15.07.2012. It is submitted that the roads and parks have been gifted to the Navalur Panchayat and the same becoming public lands are in the purview of the Panchayat and not this Opposite Party. Further, as per Government norms, the roads in layout should not be closed by putting up a compound wall or any structure that restricts the same. This Opposite Party is bound to follow the instructions set by the government and has also followed the same. The role of this Opposite Party for setting up housing plots and undertaking development such as leveling, marking, road laying, common storm water drainage, common water connections, common drainage system, common STP, common street lights, common landscaping, common entrance archways and common fencing have all been done and the Complainant was in enjoyment of the same. The Opposite Party had been providing and maintaining various common services, utilities and facilities such as General watch & ward, garbage disposal, care of water supply systems, storm drains, sewerage, etc.,Maintenance of power backup through generator sets, maintenance of trees, wate supply and other allied activities in tune with the maintenance expense so collected. The Complainant is enjoying all the facilities ever since he purchased the plot and constructed his house on the said plot. Ample security has been provided by the Opposite Party. The Complainant had verified the title and sancity of the plot in-depth before entering into the sale agreement and the subsequent sale deed in his name. The Complainant was very much aware that a rectification application needed to be filed before the DTCP. That being the reason, the agreement for sale dated 15.07.2012 was well as the sale deed dated 01.04.2013 reflected the boundaries which would be the appropriate boundary once the rectification application was approved by DTCP. Clause 6 of the agreement for sale dated 15.07.2012 also contains a provision for seeking cancellation of plot allotment if the Complainant so required. The physically demarcated plot along with all the common amenities & road were ready much before the Complainant had even entered into the agreement for sale. Therefore, if the Complainant genuinely had an issue, he would have made a representation any time before entering into a Sale Deed. The Complainant has built house in the Plot No.156 and has been in total enjoyment of the same along with the common facilities. This Opposite Party had approached the relevant authorities for submission of the rectification application. And were advised by the authorities to make certain corrections in the rectification application and to submit the same. They were on the process of carrying out certain corrections as advised by the relevant authorities and would be filing the rectification application at the earliest. This Opposite Party had intended to provide facilities for the benefit of the people who had constructed houses in the purchased plots by way of erecting a club house. However the majority of the houses in the plots were still under construction despite the club house being constructed and kept ready for use within the stipulated time (i.e) 30.06.2014. The functioning / commissioning of the club house alone did not commence as there were no users in the layout. Emails were sent by this Opposite Party to various plot owners to complete their houses in earnest and make use of the club house as non-use of the equipment such as treadmill, dumbbells, etc would only render them unusable. As on date the club house and its facilities were being enjoyed and utilized by the resident plot owners. There is no cause of action to maintain this complaint. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-13 were marked. The Opposite Party filed their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. No document was marked on the side of Opposite Party.
4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any other relief/s?
5. POINT NO 1:-
It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased and registered Plot No.156 in Green Wood City, developed by the opposite party.The dispute raised by the Complainant was from and out of the site plan brochure (Ex.A4) provided to the Complainant by the Opposite Party wherein Plot No.156 shown and marked in Ex.A4 varies from that of the DTCP plan approval No.54/2010 which was provided to the Complainant only at the time of registration of Sale Deed dated 01.04.2013 (Ex.A2) wherein the Plot No.156 along with other plots shown and marked in the site plan brochure (Ex.A4) were shown as 40 feet road running from East to West, by which physical area of Plot No.156 was altered as against Ex.A4, whereas only based on Ex.A4 the physical verification of his plot was made by the Complainant and the same was purchased, hence on seeing the Layout Plan Approval in DTCP No.54/2010 for the first time at the time of registration, further the boundaries shown in the Agreement for Sale Ex.A1 on the western side as “OSR-1” whereas in the boundary shown in the Sale Deed Ex.A2 on the western side as “Park”, which resulted in affecting his title of the said plot and caused serious mental agony to the Complainant, who had immediately taken to the knowledge of the Opposite Party about the above said fact and the Opposite Party had casually replied the issue was minor and assured to get revised sanctioned plan from Director of Town & Country Planning Authority, a Letter dated 25.05.2016 (Ex.A9) sent by Complainant by RPAD to the Opposite Party to resolve the said issue by effecting rectification in the approved layout plan and after effecting rectification to provide a copy of the same to him.
The contention of the opposite party is that as per the Housing layout plan Approval in DTCP No.54/2010 they had made ready the housing plots physically as such Plot No.156 too made ready and the same was handed over to the Complainant and further contended that only the plan approval/sanctioned plan in DTCP No.54/2010 needs to be rectified and the steps had been taken to that effect, further had contended that the boundaries shown in the sale agreement dated 15.07.2012 (Ex.A1) as well as in the sale deed dated 01.04.2013 (Ex.A2) would be the appropriate boundaries even as per the rectification Plan to be approved by Director of Town and Country Planning authority, and also contended that the roads and parks gifted and the same becoming public roads were in the purview of the Panchayat to whom it was gifted and not for them, and also as per Government norms the roads in a layout should not be putting a compound wall or any structure that restricts the same. Further contended that the Complainant being an advocate on satisfying all the requirement provided by the Opposite Party, had purchased plot No.156, if at all any discrepancy found he would have opted for cancellation of plot as per clause 6 of the Agreement for Sale dated 15.07.2012 (Ex.A1) as Plot No.156 which was physically demarcated along with all common amenities and road were ready much before the date of agreement for sale, hence the same could not be raised after the Sale Deed (Ex.A2) got registered.
It is clear that the Opposite Party had committed grave error by providing Plot No.156 as per EX.A4 (Site Plan Brochure) knowing fully well Plot No.156 was marked as road in the DTCP plan approval No.54/2010, would clearly affect the Complainant’s title in respect of Plot No.156 as well as the building constructed thereon, it is pertinent to note that the opposite party had contended that they had taken steps to obtain rectification plan approval from the Authority concerned, had not produced any authenticated evidence either by producing the valid proof of rectified application filed before authority concerned or by producing the rectified plan approval/sanctioned plan, before this commission, as it is bounden duty of the Opposite Party to obtain rectified plan in DTCP No.54/2010 and provide a copy of the rectified plan to the Complainant, it is clear that the Opposite Party had failed and neglected to do the same, would clearly amounts to deficiency of service and hence we hold that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service.
Further, it is an undisputed fact that the Opposite Party had agreed to provide a club house in Green Wood City developed by them, agreed to be completed by them on or before 30.06.2014 on a condition to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- before the same was put in usage.
The dispute raised by the Complainant is that as agreed upon by the Opposite Party to complete the club house on or before 30.06.2014, the same was not constructed and put for usage, in spite of receipt of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Complainant on 03.07.2013 as found in Ex.A5, rather only on 15.08.2016 the club house was opened for usage as found in Ex.A6, an invitation sent to the owners of the plots in Green Wood City. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the club house was built before 30.06.2014, is not sustainable, if at all the club house would have been constructed before 30.06.2014 the same should have been put in usage from 01.07.2014 itself as the lumpsum of Rs.1,50,000/- was collected from the Complainant on 03.07.2013 (Ex.A5) itself towards membership fee, would clearly amounts to deficiency of service and hence we hold that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service.
6. Point No.2 & 3 :-
As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Party, the Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages for the mental agony sustained by selling road to the Complainant in DTCP layout plan approval as Plot No.156 as against Ex.A4 and also entitled for an interest alone at the rate of 12% per annum on a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which is non refundable being the Club Membership fee collected by the opposite party from 01.07.2014 to 14.08.2016 and also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of this complaint. And hence the complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 & 3 is answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part, the Opposite Party is directed to pay the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) for the mental agony caused to the Complainant, by selling plot No.156 shown as road in DTCP layout plan approval and also to pay an interest at the rate of 12% per annum on a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which is non-refundable being the Club membership fee collected from the Complainant by the Opposite Party from 01.07.2014 to 14.08.2016 and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) towards the cost of this complaint, within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
In the result the complaint is allowed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 8th of June 2022.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 15.07.2012 | Agreement for sale |
Ex.A2 | 01.04.2003 | Sale deed |
Ex.A3 | 23.07.2010 | Gift Deed |
Ex.A4 |
| Site Plan in broacher |
Ex.A5 | 04.07.2013 | Statement ofA/Cs |
Ex.A6 | 15.08.2016 | Club house invitation |
Ex.A7 | 04.04.2015 | Police CSR 91/2015 |
Ex.A8 | 25.06.2015 | Police FIR |
Ex.A9 | 25.05.2016 | Regd letter with A/D addressed to Opposite Party |
Ex.A10 | 17.12.2012 | Mail from Opposite Party |
Ex.A11 | 05.05.2017 | Affidavit secretary GWC owners Assn |
Ex.A12 | 05.05.2017 | Affidavit of Priya Rajesh dweller GWC |
Ex.A13 |
| Mails exchanged by owners of plot in Green wood city |
List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-
NIL
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.