Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/72/2012

S.Maheswari - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Metro City Foundation & others - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE        Thiru. J.JAYARAM                  PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER

                        Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                 MEMBER

C.C. 72/2012

DATED THIS THE  5^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

Mrs.S.Maheswari,

W/o, Subramaniam

No.14/F, Lakshmi Nagar 1^st street,

City Garden, Tirupur 641 602                                                                       ..complainant

                                                                             Vs

1. M/s Metro City Foundation

No.96, Perumal Kovil street,

Tiruppur 641 604 

Represented by its Managing Director,

 

2. D.Prabhu

Partner

M/s Metro City Foundation,

No.10, Deepam Complex

No.577, 100 Feet Road

Gandhipuram

Coimbatore-12       

 

3. Mrs.P.Jayanthi

Partner

M/s Metro City Foundation,

No.10, Deepam Complex

No.577, 100 Feet Road

Gandhipuram

Coimbatore-12   

 

4. M.P.S.Thiagarajan,

s/o M.P.Subramaniam,

49, Ramalinga Layouts

K.P.N colony

Tiruppur 641 601  

 

5.Mrs. T.Sudha

W/o M.P.S.Thiagarajan,

49, Ramalinga Layouts

K.P.N colony

Tiruppur 641 601                                                                          ..opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainant           : M/s. S.Natarajan

Opposite parties 1 to 5                  : Exparte

 

        This case coming before us for final hearing on 22.7.2015 and on  hearing the arguments of the complainant and upon perusing the material this Commission made the following order

Thiru. J.JAYARAM,  PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

1. The Case of the complainant are as follows:-

         Flat No. F.1, with 1303 sq.ft of built up area along with 500 sq.ft of undivided share for allotted and agreed to be sold to the complainant. Accordingly a separate agreement for construction dated 31.8.2007 was executed between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party as per the agreement for construction, the 1^st opposite party undertook to construct the multi storied building in accordance with the development plans sanctioned by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning Authority, Local Panchayat and other statutory authorities like Coimbatore Corporation and Ministry of Local Administration. Under Article I(i) of Agreement for construction, the total sale consideration is Rs. 50,50,000/- towards the land and construction. Further under Article I(7), the first opposite party undertook to hand over the possession by January 2008. The 1^st opposite party under Article 3(iii) of the construction agreement, agreed to pay 18% interest for the delay of delivery beyond January 2008. 

2.           The 4^th and 5^th opposite parties being owners of the suit premises executed the registered sale deed of undivided share of 500 sq.ft on 13.9.2007.

3.          The complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 54,60,000/- as per the construction agreement on 31.1.2008 itself and she performed the obligation as per construction agreement. Due to interse dispute between the opposite parties they have delayed the construction work. The 1^st opposite party handed over the incomplete possession on 18.1.2010. The complainant finds following incomplete work.

i)    Proper Corporation drinking water bulk lines not provided

ii)   There was no access to Club House.

3. There are no proper play area with right equipment for children
4. in the complainant flat, Electrical fittings, lights, Lamps, Wardrobes, substandard tiles are used. Floor tiles are fixed by unskilled cheap labour, totally running the output.
5. The Door, window hinges, tower bolts, locks, handles were missing.
6. Parking area flooring is poorly laid with lot of undulations.
7. The quality of floor tiles, bathroom fittings are below the quality.
8. No complete wardrobe in one bedroom
9. Swimming pool is not yet provided.
10. No sanctioned plan has been given.
11. No parental deed relating to the title of the suit proper has been given
12. There was no proper water and sewerage connection.
13. No approved layout plan given
14. Generator facility provided is highly underrated, insufficient and substandard equipment is provided resulting in high maintenance and fuel consumption.
15. Common toilet is not provided.
16. Lighting in the common areas, open areas, garden and parking area is highly insufficient.
17. Rain water harvesting is not provided.
18. Poor quality Gym equipments and AC not provided in the Gym.
19. Weathering course on the open terrace is substandard.
20. Intercom facility among the flats not provided.
21. Plumbing carried out by unskilled workers causing permanent worries.

    Thus there was total absence of common amenities in the project and defects in the individual project.

4.    As per the construction agreement, the 1^st opposite party agreed to handover the possession by January 2008, but he handed over the possession on 18.1.2010 and hence they are liable to pay Rs. 21,23,000/-  compensation for delayed period.

5.      The completion certificate given by Corporation is mandatory for multi storage building before occupation and in the event of deviation, there is a serious threat for demolition, the 1^st opposite party under legal application to get completion certificate from Corporation Authority only on getting completion certificate and occupancy certificate, the complainant will enjoy of the statutory benefit. The corporation usually has given completion certificate,  only on completion of entire project  as per sanctioned plan; but the opposite party has not handed over the completion certificate till today.

6.      It is in trade practice that before handing over the possession measurement of the flat to be given to the purchaser to avoid feature dispute of area reduction. The measurement plan architect are liable to pay Rs.1,52,500/- towards the claim in receipt of unfinished work, namely Electrical fittings, lights, Lamps, Wardrobes, substandard tiles are used. Floor tiles are fixed by unskilled cheap labour, totally running the output. There was undue delay in completing the project which amounts to deficiency in service.         

       Hence the complainant praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 22,33,415/- as compensation for delay in delivering the possession, to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,500/- towards incomplete work, to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service an indulging the unfair trade practice and to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/-

 7.         The opposite parties 1 to 5 remained absent before the Commission and they have set exparte.

8.      The complainant filed proof affidavit reiterating the averments complainant. 3 documents were filed and marked as Ex.A.1 to A.3 on the side of the complainant.

9.         9.      Points for consideration:-

1)  Whether the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged the complaint?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties?

3) To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

9. The points 1 &2 :-

             Ex.A.1 is the construction agreement dated 31.8.2007, Ex.A.2 is the sale deed dated 13.9.2007 and Ex.A.3 is the possession certificate dated 18.1.2010.

            We find that Rs. 50,50,000/- is the total amount of sale consideration and the cost of the construction and also we find that the stipulated period for completion of construction and handed over the possession on January 2008 and as per the agreement as per Article 1(7) of the Construction Agreement, the 1^st opposite party will pay 18% p.a interest for the delayed period of delivering the possession beyond January 2008, the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.54,60,000/- as per the construction agreement on 4.2.2008 and also we find that the 1^st opposite party has deliver the possession of construction flat to the complainant on 18.1.2010.

10.          On considering the entire material records to establish that the 1^st opposite party has adopted unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

11.           We hold that the opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties and the points are answered accordingly.

12.    Point No.3 :

             In view of the finding of points 1 and 2, we hold that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the delay in delivering the possession and for the incomplete works and compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and costs and the point is answered accordingly,

              The complainant has claimed Rs. 22,33,415/- as compensation for the delay in handing over the possession and Rs.1,52,500/- towards the incomplete works and to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for compensation for mental agony etc., and cost of Rs.25,000/-. We feel that the claim of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for mental agony etc, is on the higher side and we are inclined to award Rs.2 lakhs. So and so, we are inclined to reduce the cost of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/-.

             In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 22,33,415/- as compensation for the delay in delivering  possession and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,52,500/- as compensation towards incomplete works and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay  costs of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand Rupees only)

          Time for compliance : Two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of default in compliance of the order, the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of default till compliance.

      

 

TMT.  P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                           J. JAYARAM                         

    MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER         

Documents filed by the Complainant :-

Ex.A.1          31.8.2007    copy of construction agreement

Ex.A.2          13.9.2007     copy of sale deed

Ex.A.3          18.1.2010     copy of possession certificate

 

TMT.  P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                 J. JAYARAM                    

         MEMBER                                               PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER