Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

164/2014

K.Bhuvaneshwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Fomra Developers by the partner shavad Forma,M/s.Fomra Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

27 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  05.08.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  27.07.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE 27^th   DAY OF JULY 2017

 

C.C.NO.164/2014

 

 

K.Bhuvaneswari,

Flat #: B-1C First Floor,

“Tribhuvan “ Plot #:82 Shakthi Nagar,

II Avenue Nolambur, Chennai – 95.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

M/s. Fomra Developers,

By its Partner Sharad Fomra,

M/s Fomra Housing & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

#:18 AA Block 3^rd Street,

Near Soundarapandian Bone & Joint Hospital,

Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 13.08.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : S.Natarajan

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M/s AAV Partners

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to allot a permanent covered car park with adequate dimension and also compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and unfair trade practice with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant agreed to purchase a flat in TRIBHUVAN Project B-1 C, first floor, Plot No.82, Shakthi Nagar 11 Avenue, Nolambur, Chennai – 95, promoted by the Opposite Party. The Complainant entered into a construction agreement on 14.08.2008 with the Opposite Party to construct flat measuring 1354 sq.ft including common area.  The total construction was at Rs.40,13,550/- payable at various stages. On 12.12.2008 the opposite party registered for 830 sq.feet UDS land on payment of Rs.7,88,550/- as described in ‘B’ schedule of construction agreement. The Complainant paid entire amount to the opposite party on later on 15.02.2011 made a final payment of Rs.2,68,535/-.

          2. The opposite party gave the keys of the flat on 09.02.2011 along with EB card. The Complainant took actual possession on 17.04.2011. The covered car park slot 24 allotted to the Complainant with insufficient space. He also paid Rs.1,50,000/- for car park as per construction agreement. On protest made by the Complainant, the opposite party made temporary allotment covered car park slots 28 and 28A on 17.10.2012. This allotment was changed to slots 8 and 8A on 01.12.2014. The Complainant using temporary allotment of car park slots 8 and 8A as per opposite parties letter.

          3. The Opposite Party’s e-mail dated 22.07.2014, suggests the Complainant to use insufficient car parking space 24 and open car parking space available in slot 11, adding to the agony. The Complainant’s queries for getting proper and adequate covered car parking space are given evasive replies by various personnel of the Opposite Party as an appeasement. The Complainant now has to lead life without a covered car park, though she is entitled to the same, which had been denied by the Opposite Party’s dodgy attitude. The Complainant has to run from pillar to post for getting her much need covered car park, making matters worse. Therefore, the Complainant prays to allot a permanent covered car park with adequate dimension and also compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and unfair trade practice with cost of the complaint.  

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party while handing over the  possession of the Complainant  flat, the said single covered car park slot No.24 was also handed over to the Complainant. For the above said single covered car park the Complainant had made payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as agreed in the construction agreement. The Complainant had informed the opposite party that she was not able to park her car at her standard size single covered car park slot No.24, as it is very small to park her INNOVA car. On her request a discussion was held at site on 01.12.2013 with vice president and the Complainant. Based on the discussions between the Complainant and the opposite party as a goodwill gesture and also on the request made by the Complainant, a standard size twin covered car park slot Nos.8 and 8A was temporarily allotted to the Complainant. This is in fact twice as large as the agreed car park area mentioned in the construction agreement. The Complainant was specifically informed that she should pay for the second slot as she already had payment for the first slot. The opposite party informed the Complainant vide their mail dated 10.09.2014 that they can proceed with documentation process for conveying the twin car parking slot Nos.8 and 8A to the Complainant permanently and requesting the Complainant to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for assigning the twin covered car park, but she preferred the present vexatious complaint. The Complainant is unanimously using the twin car park slot no. 28 & 28A. In this connection, the said Mr.Rajesh Rabindranath has sent numerous mail of the opposite party which itself shows that the Complainant is making nuisance to other car park owners. The complaint came to be filed beyond limitation hence on this ground also the complaint is to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that there is no loss suffered by the Complainant due to any alleged act of this opposite party and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a flat bearing No.B-1C, 1^st floor, “THIRUBHUVAN” plot-82, Shakthi nagar, II avenue, Nolambur, Chennai-95. In the Thirubhuvan project promoted by the opposite party and Ex.A1 is the allotment letter issued by the opposite party to the Complainant for the aforesaid flat, the Complainant and the opposite party entered Ex.A2 construction agreement dated 14.08.2008 and accordingly the flat measuring 1354 sq.ft including common area constructed by the opposite party for total consideration of Rs.40,13,550/- paid by the Complainant of various stages and after registering the UDS land for 830 sq.ft on 12.12.2008 in favour of the complainant on payment of Rs.7,88,550/- and the Complainant also paid a final payment of Rs.2,68,535/- on 15.2.2011 and the opposite party handed over possession under Ex.A5 on 9.2.2011 and keys to hand over the Complainant and Ex.A6 letter and simultaneously EB Card under Ex.A7 letter to the Complainant.

7. The contention of the Complainant is that the car park No.24 was allotted to him was not sufficient space for parking his car and hence on his protest, he was allotted car park slots 28 and 28A temporarily and again the said car park slots was changed and allotted temporarily 8 and 8A under Ex.A9 and  the Complainant already paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for the covered car park to the opposite party and now the opposite party demanding another sum of Rs.1,50,000 is not acceptable and further the opposite party had not allotted a permanent car park of adequate dimension to him is deficiency in service and therefore prays to allot permanent car park and also to order compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also for unfair trade practice with cost of complaint.

8. Ex.A2 is the construction agreement entered between the Complainant and the opposite party.  In the said construction agreement schedule - C provides an allotment signed covered car parking space bearing No.24 and a signed cover two wheelers parking bearing No.43 was allotted to the Complainant  and the same was marked  in the plan. However, the Complainant said that the said car parking was not sufficient to park his Innova Car and hence the opposite party admittedly allotted temporarily slot No.28 & 28A temporarily to park her car. Further, subsequently the opposite party also changed the slots and allotted slot Nos.8 & 8A temporarily under Ex.A8 & Ex.A9.

9. Now, the Complainant using the car park slots 8 & 8A and the Complainant admittedly paid the amount for his car park as per plan and construction agreement. However, the opposite party would contend that the Complainant now using twin car park slots 8 & 8A and the Complainant paid for only one slot car park and hence the opposite party demanded the Complainant to pay another car park slot  for a sun of Rs.1,50,000/- and the same was refused by the Complainant. As per the construction agreement only one covered car park slot and a covered two wheeler park alone was agreed to be allotted to the Complainant and the same was also allotted to him. However, the said car park was not sufficient to park the Complainant car and hence the opposite party himself allotted temporarily slots 8 & 8A twin car park to the Complainant. As the car park allotted to the Complainant in the first instance and same was not sufficient to park the Complainant car is agreed by the opposite party and that is why he had temporarily allotted twin car park. Therefore, the opposite party had not allotted sufficient car park to the Complainant to park his car for the amount received from the Complainant is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Therefore the opposite party owes a duty to the Complainant to allot and to provide sufficient car park to the Complainant for the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- received from the Complainant for the purpose. Therefore, we hold that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service in not providing sufficient adequate car park to the Complainant.

10. POINT NO:2

          We have held in point No.1 that the opposite party had not provided sufficient and adequate car park to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for the same and therefore the opposite party can be directed to allot a permanent covered car park with sufficient space to park his car. Due to the act of the deficiency in service of the opposite party, the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and further by allotting inadequate car park and subsequently allotting temporary car park to the Complainant is an unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party and therefore it would be appropriate to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practice besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is ordered to allot a permanent car park with adequate and sufficient space to park   the Complainant’s car within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order and also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/ (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony to the Complainant besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.     

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 27^th day of July 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 13.06.2008                   Allotment letter

Ex.A2 dated 14.08.2008                   Construction Agreement

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Receipts

Ex.A4 dated 09.02.2011                   Consolidated payment details

Ex.A5 dated 09.02.2011                   Letter of Handing over possession

Ex.A6 dated 09.02.2011                   Letter handing over keys to flat

Ex.A7 dated 09.02.2011                   Letter giving EB card

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     Opposite Party’s letter

Ex.A9 dated 22.07.2014                   Opposite Party’s e-mail

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      …… NIL ……

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT