Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/199/2016

M.Deepti - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Euro Constructions, J.L.Kumar L.Paul Chellakumar - Opp.Party(s)

Kamaraj, S.Mani Power Agent

03 Jul 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   21.06.2016

                                                                        Date of Order :   03.07.2017

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.199/2016

MONDAY THIS  3RD   DAY OF JULY 2017

 

Mrs. M.Deepti,

D/o. Mr. S.Mani,

Rep. by her Power of Agent,

Mr.S.Mani,

S/o. Late Mr.M.Shanmugasundaram,

Flat No.S-1, Door No.2/29,

Jayaram Nagar, 3^rd Cross Street,

Teachers Colony, Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai 600 041.                                               .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1.  M/s. Euro Constructions,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

Mr.J.L.Kumar @ L. Paul Chella Kumar,

No.8/34, II Floor, Vaidhyaraman Street,

T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 and

Old No.15, New No.20, 2^nd Street,

Perumalpuram,

Tirunelveli 627 007.

 

2. Mrs. Rukmani Balaji,

W/o. Mr. Balaji,

No.10/29, 2^nd Cross Street,

Teachers Colony, Jayaram Nagar,

Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041.                   .. Opposite parties.  

 

For Complainant            :    M/s. M.Kamaraj.    

For opposite parties       :    exparte.  

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony and also to allot earmarked Car Parking Slot bearing Slot  No.S-1 for using by the complainant and not to allot to park anybody and also to pay cost of the complaint.

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

         The complainant submit that the 2^nd opposite party was the owner of the land measuring 2220 sq. ft of land situated in plot No.12, comprised in Survey No.188/1, 188/2, 188/3 Door No.2/29 Jayaram Nagar, Teachers Colony, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai.   The complainant also submit that the opposite party have obtained the construction of residential building in the said land measuring 2220 sq. ft. and the planning permit, permission proceedings and plan approved by the Corporation of Chennai.  As per the permission in the Ground Floor G1 Flat, and parking lot F1 and F2 in the first floor and S1 at the second floor was allowed.   The 1^st opposite party initially constructed the same in according with the plan and the parking space allotted at the ground floor earmarked as G1, F1, F2 and S1 only.   The complainant states that the first opposite party sold the flats details as follows:

Sl.No.	Flat No.	Owner’s Name	Document No.	UDS Sq.ft.
1	G1	R.Gaythri	10915/2011	517.90
2	F1	Sudha Krishnamurthy	9921/2011	467.30
3	F2	Gopinath Shanmugam	8566/2011	502.80
		Total Extent		1488.00

 

The above three flats UDS sold by the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party sold the UDS which was retained by herself i.e. 454 sq. ft. out of land measuring 2220 sq. ft. sold to the complainant under the sale deed dated 19.5.2014.   and also the 1^st opposite party registered the construction agreement on 19.5.2014, and agreed to construct a residential apartment for the complainant to be numbered as S1 in the second floor having build up area of 1020 sq. ft. including common areas.     Further the complainant states that the first opposite party undertook to construct the Residential apartment as per the detailed specification.   Both the opposite parties connived together and unauthorizely built the flat in the second floor named S2 for the use of second opposite party and allotted the remaining (USD of 1488 + 454 = 1942 sq ft sold remains 278 Sq. ft. )  278 sq ft. is against the permission proceedings and plan approved by the Corporation of Chennai, dated 7.1.2011.  The opposite parties constructed unauthorized flat and allotted the car parking place of the complainant and the complainant demanded the opposite parties for not to allot the car parking place to anybody which caused great mental agony and hardship.  Hence the complaint is filed. 

2.     Inspite of receipt of notice the opposite parties 1 & 2  did not appear before this forum and therefore they were set exparte.  

4.     Though the 1^st  & 2^nd  opposite parties remained exparte this  Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this forum. 

5.     In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to  Ex.A9  are marked. 

 

6.      The points for consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief of allotment  and earmarked car parking slot bearing No.S-1 by the opposite parties as prayed for?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony caused by the opposite parties by way of unauthorized construction as prayed for?

 

7. POINTS 1 & 2: -

 

        Heard the complainant counsel.  Pursed the records.   The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the 2^nd opposite party was the owner of the land measuring 2220 sq. ft. in plot No.12, comprised in survey No.188/1, 188/2, 188/3 Door No.2/29, Jayaram Nagar, 3^rd Cross Street, Teachers Colony, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41 as per Ex.A3.   The 2^nd opposite party appointed Mr. J.L. Kumar @ L.Paul Chella Kumar as her General Power of Attorney dated 25.10.2010 to  sell an undivided share of 1766 sq. ft. as per Ex.A2.   The complainant further contended that the opposite parties obtained the construction of residential building premium in the said plot.  As per Ex.A4 and as per Ex.A5 the permission was granted only to construct one apartment in ground floor, two apartments in first floor, and one apartment in 2^nd floor.  The 1^st opposite party initially constructed the building as per the approved plan and allotted parking space to G1, F1, F2 and S1 only; but the complainant has not produced any plan showing car parking area for the above said flat except a plan drawn by an Engineer and signed by 1^st opposite party.   The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the opposite parties after selling 517.90 sq. ft of undivided share to G1 flat owner, 467.30 sq. ft of undivided share to F1 flat owner, 502.80 sq. ft of undivided share to F2 flat owner and 454 sq. ft. of undivided share to the complainant and in the balance 278 sq. ft. of undivided share constructed a Flat as S2 unauthorizely. The opposite parties constructed such unauthorized flat and allotted the car parking place of the complainant and the complainant demanded the opposite parties not to allot the car parking place to anybody which caused great mental agony.  Hence the complainant was constrained to file this case.

8.     But on a careful perusal of the records it is apparently clear that there is no approved  plan showing car parking area or earmarked car parking area allotted to the owners of G1, F1, F2 and S1 apartments.  The approved plan Ex.A5 is absolutely silent with regard to the car parking area. The sale deed Ex.A3 also totally silent with regard to the car parking space.   Claiming car parking area as per Ex.A5 and contending usage of the common area for car parking and prayed for allotment earmarking car parking area in the available common area shall be in due proportionate to the UDS holders.   In this case admittedly the opposite parties having UDS of 278 sq. ft. the question of unauthorized construction cannot be raised by the complainant since the proper authorities are CMDA, Chennai Corporation etc.   The learned counsel for the complainant cited a decision reported in NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No.478 of 2007.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that without proper  plan approval for car parking area; claiming car parking space from common area without considering the due proportionate UDS holder by the complainant cannot be granted.   Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and the point is answered accordingly. 

In the result this 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  3^RD day  of  July 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 21.9.2012  - Copy of Deed of Power of Attorney.

Ex.A2- 19.5.2014  - Copy of Agreement for Construction.

Ex.A3- 19.5.2014  - Copy of Sale Deed.

Ex.A4-         -       - Copy of the plan given by the Corporation of Chennai.

Ex.A5-         -       - Copy of car parking plan.

Ex.A6- 21.5.2016  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A7- 23.5.2016  - Copy of Ack Card of opposite party-1.

Ex.A8- 23.5.2016 - Copy of Ack. card of opposite party-2.

Ex.A9- 23.5.2016  - Copy of Return cover of opposite party-1.  

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

.. Nil..

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.