Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/315/2016

S.Vairamani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sare Jubilee Shelters Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S. Balaji

29 Sep 2022

ORDER

                                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 19.07.2016

                                                     Date of Reservation      : 15.09.2022

                                                     Date of Order               : 29.09.2022

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. 315/2016

THURSDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

S.Vairamani,

S/o Late B. Seelappan,

First Floor, No.62-24/1,

Indira Colony, Kakithemilleth Nagar,

T.S.M. Routher Road,

Uthamapalayam,

Theni District.                                                               ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

 

M/s. Sare Jubilee Shelters Pvt Ltd,

Rep. by is Authorized Signatory,

Mr. C. Saravanan,

First Floor, SKCL Icon,

C42 & C43, CIPET Road,

Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate,

Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.                                        ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : Party In Person

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s. Edwin Solomon

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant Party in Person and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru, T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay the token advance of Rs.1,00,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.11,09,560/- towards loss incurred by the Complainant.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The case of the Complainant is that he was employed in Electricity Board for about 14 ½ years and got retired on 30.06.2012. He and his wife was living with their son at Marthahalli, Bangalore, while he was working in Electricity Board, he had filed 9 cases against the Electricity Board administration before Hon’ble High Court, Madras and before Hon’ble Sub Court, Ponneri, which were pending. Hence to follow up with those cases he had decided to purchase a house at Chennai. The Opposite Party unit Manager Mr.Teja Krishnan/Channel Partner Mr.Dayalan contacted him regarding villa No.B62-01, through them he came to know that on token advance of Rs.1 lakh, one Vishnu Priya had booked villa-B-30-01 and as such (ii) to (viii) villa Nos B-29-01, B-27-01, B-22-01, B-48-01, B-47-01, B-25-01, B-28-01 and A-4/03 and A-05/03 were booked by Beula Ajith and Jayanthi Dayalan, respectively, thereafter he had given a cheque for villa B-62-01. On the instructions of channel partner and unit Manager, he was requested to sign the receipt without mentioning the villa No.B62-01, as found in Document No.3. The cheque for Rs.1 lakh issued by him was realized by the Opposite Party on 06.11.2015. Thereafter Document No.4 dated 06.11.2015 villa No.B-62-01 has been allotted to him as found in Page No.11 and when the copy of the same has been issued to him, Document NO.6 receipt was issued to him. He was ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,50,000/- as per condition found in page No.11 from 06.11.2015 to 21.11.2015, out of his retirement benefits amount of Rs.7,75,000/- deposited in IOB, Uthamapalayam, amount he had after sale of his own house at Mangadu and amounts he had after sale of the agricultural land belongs to his wife, in Chinnamanur, Theni District. While he went to withdraw the amount of Rs.7,75,000/- from IOB, Uthamapalayam, to pay to the Opposite Party, he come to know about the change of Villa from villa No.B62-01 which was already allotted to him to unit No.B53-01 which was sent through Professional Courier vide receipt No.970/16.11.2015 to his Theni address. Pursuant to the same, he had contacted the Opposite Party, Unit Manager, channel Partner, 12 times over phone, thereafter on 15.02.2016 when he met the Area Manager/Sare Homes in person, though the Area Manger had admitted that the irregularities of their administration officers, he was shocked to hear from the Area Manager that villa No.B63-01 was allotted to him, which made him to lose confidence on Sare Homes, he cancelled the villa on the same day and at the instruction of the Area Manager, Document No.8 was submitted by him. The Opposite Party/Area Manager had not kept their assurances given from 02/2016 to 09/2016 of refunding the Token advance of Rs.1 Lakh to him within a month of selling villa No.B63-01 and it is pertinent to point out from 09/2016 the Opposite Party had failed to honour the assurance given by the Area Manager. In the Application form submitted by him to the Opposite Party, it is mentioned as “if a token Deposit is paid. I undertake to pay the remaining Booking Amount on or before expiry of 15 days, i.e., 06.11.2015 to 21.11.2015, the company has right to cancel the booking and treat the Token Deposit paid by me as FORFEITED”, the said condition has been violated by the Opposite Party’s administrative officers as evidenced from Document No.7 dated 16.11.2015. Further, the allotment receipts Nos. 967/06.11.2015 wherein unit Number was mentioned as B 62-01, after ten days they had issued a receipt No.970/16.11.2015 wherein unit Number was mentioned as B53-01 and the Area Manager orally informed him that his villa number was changed to B63-01 would clearly prove by the documents, which is clear violation of all rules of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Opposite Party and Area Manager had cheated and committed criminal breach of Trust by not allowing him to purchase a villa/house and to stay at Chennai, are proved by the documents. Hence, having lost confidence had sought for refund of Token advance, though he had submitted an application for refund on 15.02.2016 as instructed by the Area Manager, he suffers as he could not able to get the refund of Rs.1 lakh from 09/2016 onwards. Hence he had obtained CSR No.338/2016 by lodging an appropriate complaint before the Police Authorities. No copy of the FIR has been provided as assured. It is informed that from 20.04.2016 till date i.e., 09/2016 not even an action has been taken against the Opposite Party by the Police Authorities. The Opposite Parties/Area Manager/General Manager(legal) & Unit Manager are liable to compensate him for mental agony caused to him from 15.02.2016 to 21.07.2016 and the Opposite Party is liable to compensate towards expenses spent by him. The General Manager (Legal) of the Opposite Party had submitted a letter dated 22.04.2016 stating to treat the token Deposit paid as forfeited. Though he possess with more than Rs.60 lakhs of money, ,inspite of having paid the token amount for the villa, the Opposite Party had cheated and committed breach of Trust. He had filed documents Nos.19 to 32 to show the real facts how to lives as a honest and obedient senior Citizen much interest in the welfare of the country. Only to obstruct the follow up of cases filed by him particularly claiming damages of Rs.45 crores in WP. No.28279/2014 as found in Document No.23, the Opposite Party/Area Manager had wantonly changed the number of the villa, originally allotted to him and without his permission had sent a fabricated Document No.7 and thereby to lose confidence on the Opposite Party, would be proved. The Opposite Party administrative officers insufficiency services and the act of violating all the rules of Real Estate Regulatory Authority would be proved by not responding to document No.8, containing the personal requests made to him from 15.02.2016 to 09/2016, through speed post, Registered post sent by him, CSR.No.338/2016 relating to the instant case. Hence had claimed Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony caused to him, transport expenses of Rs.13,430/- for 4 visits made from Utamapalayam (Theni) to Chennai as well as towards other expenses spent towards filing of the instant case including refund of Token advance of Rs.1,00,000/- claimed total sum of Rs.11,18,120/-. Hence the Complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Complaint is not maintainable either in Law or on facts since the definitions of "Consumer Dispute" and "Service" as defined in Section 2(1) of the said Act do not cover the claims arising under the present dispute and from the aforesaid definitions, the averments involved in the complaint is not a "Consumer Dispute" at all, as the allegations raised are purely on commercial terms and conditions which does not fall within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the same.  The complaint lacks bonafide and is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. Clause 33 of the agreement provides for Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, wherein the Company shall appoint a sole arbitrator, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties and hence this Forum lacks Jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The Opposite Party is a Private Limited Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the Opposite Party is the owner of the Plot Nos. 1153 to 1169, 1172 to 1202, 1204 to 1224, 1235 to 1250, 1253 to 1285 and 1288 to 1301 and measuring an extent of 2,81,393 square feet situated at Thiruporur Village, erstwhile Chengalpattu Taluk, presently Thiruporur Taluk, Kanchipuram District comprised in Survey Nos. 219, 220/1A, 220/1B, 220/2, 223/1, 223/2. They had formulated a scheme for development and sale of residential Villa in the residential complex namely "Crescent ParC Dewy Terraces- Phase V". The Complainant had booked Villa Type B, Villa No. B62-01 with a super built up area of 1268 square feet on Plot No. 1301 together with undivided share of land measuring 900 square feet and an advance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was also received in pursuant to the Application form duly signed by the Complainant dated 25.10.2015 with the Opposite Party. The Complainant entered into a Contract with the Opposite Party to purchase Villa Type B, Villa No. B-62-01 with a super built up area of 1268 square feet. The Complainant upon satisfactory completion of Due diligence of the Property, Approvals, Building Project and satisfactory completion of model Villa, booked the Villa and signed the Application form. As per the terms and conditions of the Application form duly signed by the Complainant, the Complainant had to pay the Opposite Party a total consideration of Rs. 59,41,125/- inclusive of Basic Sale price, Allied charges and applicable Service tax. By virtue of the agreed terms, the Complainant agreed to pay the said total consideration of Rs.59,41,125/- to the Opposite party in 9 instalments in accordance with the Construction Linked Payment plan set forth in payment schedule of the said Application. The Complaint had come to this Forum only on the basis of the change of Villa Number that had been originally allotted to him, they had never changed the Villa Number allotted to the Complainant and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine as one without any cause of action. Further the Opposite Party denied to return the token advance and that the Complainant had filed the Police Complaint and had obtained CSR copy and the Police had not taken any steps against the Opposite Party and hence the same would amount to insufficient service and breach of trust and the Opposite Party had not replied till date are all strictly denied as false and baseless. It is further submitted that Mr. Dayalan is not their Channel Partner as alleged by the Complainant and he is one of their customer who had personally recommended their project to other persons and hence this Opposite Party is in no way connected with the said Dayalan. The Complainant had booked and paid the Villa on 25.10.2015 much earlier than all others as alleged in the Complaint as the others had booked the Villas on 26.10.2015 & 29.10.2015. The allegations of Channel Partner and Unit Manager had demanded the Complainant to sign the document No. 03 without specifying the Villa No. B62-01 and the further averment that the Opposite Party had changed the Villa Unit No. 862-01 to Unit No. B53-01 without his permission and had intimated the same to the Complainant through Professional Courier vide Receipt No. 970/16.11.2015 are all absolutely denied as false. The Complainant had booked a Villa bearing No. B62-01 by signing the Application Form and paid Rs.1,00,000/- vide Cheque bearing No. 108668 dated 25.10.2015 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Poonamallae branch and the Opposite Party had issued Receipt for the above said payment vide our Receipt No. 967 dated 06.11.2015 duly signed by the Authorized Signatory herein through Professional Courier consignment No. 1901114510 on the same day and the same had been received by the Complainant on 07.11.2015. The balance booking amount of Rs. 5,50,000/ to be paid by the Complainant on or before 10.11.2015 i.e. from the date of booking of Villa i.e., On 25.10.2015 and not from date of encashment of the token advance on 06.11.2015. But the Complainant had wrongly averred that he had been ready to pay the balance booking amount between 06.11.2015 to 21.11.2015. The Complainant had conveniently taken the date of payment for balance booking amount as, on or before 21.11.2015 whereas the actual date of payment was on or before 10.11.2015 and hence the Complainant had defaulted and breached the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Application. The Complaint had cooked up this date as 21.11.2015 to suit his convenience so as to shift the burden on the part of the Opposite Party. In any event if the Complainant had sufficient means as averred, ought to have paid the balance booking amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the Opposite Party on or before 10.11.2015 and hence the Complainant is liable to be proceeded against for breach of terms and conditions of the Application. In the Receipt No. 970 dated 16.11.2015, the Complainant name had been wrongly entered in the place of another customer and it may be obtained by the Complainant in collusion with the erstwhile marketing executive of the Opposite Party. Moreover the said Receipt had not been sent to the Complainant vide Professional courier (consignment No. 1901114510) dated 16.11.2015 as alleged by the Complainant. The above said Professional courier consignment No. 1901114510 related to Receipt No. 967 and had conveniently manipulated the date of the receipt of the Courier as 17.11.2015 but the same had been received by the Complainant on 07.11.2015 and hence the Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and had created documents to suit his convenience and to sustain his Complaint. The allegations that the Complainant had contacted the Opposite Party Unit manager and Channel Partner through telephone on 12 occasions and that on 15.02.2016, the Area Manager had admitted the irregularities committed by the Opposite Party and that the Area Manager had orally stated that the Villa allotted to the Complainant is B63-01 are all strictly denied as not true and hence the same is not sustainable in law. The alleged Letter dated 15.02.2016 does not contain the particulars as to whom the same is addressed and the Villa Number has been wrongly stated as B63-01. The Complainant being an educated person and having served as AEE/TNEB (Retired) is said to have believed the oral statement and the handing over of the alleged letter and hence the said averments does not contain any legal sanctity and the same cannot be relied on. The allegations that they had not kept up their promises of allotting the Villa No. B63-01 to some other customer and to return the token advance were not true. Villa No. B62-01 booked by the Complainant alone was allotted to him. There is no relevancy between refund of advance booking amount and allotment of Villa No. B63-01 to some other customer, while the Complainant booked only Villa No. B62-01. As per the agreed terms and conditions of the Application form, the Complainant after the payment of token deposit, has to pay the remaining booking amount on or before expiry of 15 days from the date of this Application, the Company has the right to cancel this booking and treat the token deposit paid by the Complainant as forfeited. The Complainant had booked Villa No. B62-01 and signed this Application on 25.10.2015 under the specific understanding that the remaining booking amount to be paid on or before the expiry of 15 days (i.e. 10.11.2015) from the date of this Application (i.e., 25.10.2015). The Complainant had not chosen to make the payment and had committed breach of the terms of the Applications as agreed. The specific averment of the Complaint that the change of Villa was intimated to the Complainant on 17.11.2015 was of no relevance since the Complainant had already breached the terms of the Application and hence any claim or complaint based on such irrelevant document is not admissible in law and hence the Opposite Party is justified in cancellation of the booking as per the agreed terms and hence the token deposit paid by the Complainant had been forfeited. The total consideration by the Complainant to the Opposite party, as per the Payment Schedule therein is the essence of the Contract, as any delay would hamper the completion of construction of the Apartment and will also cause undue hardship to Opposite party. With bonafide intention they had cancelled the booking and forfeited the token deposit only after having not received any payment for more than three months as enumerated under clause 9, although it is applicable only after payment of advance booking amount and default in payment of installment. The payment schedule plan itself is linked to various stages of construction i.e Construction Linked Installment, if there is any delay in payment of consideration, the Opposite Party may not be in a position to proceed further construction and such delay would hamper the completion of construction of entire block. The Opposite Party has invested a huge sum of money for development of integral Township gated community with multitude amenities. So if the Complainant commits a breach of the Payment Schedule or any of the payments due and payable there under then the Opposite Party shall claim the amounts in default or arrears with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable from the date of default up to the date of payment. The Complainant demand of return of token advance amount with interest is not sustainable and not valid in the eye of law which is clearly enumerated under clause 10. At no point of time they have indulged in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant. They had cancelled the booking and forfeited the token advance only due to the breach committed on the part of the Complainant and not due to any undue influences as averred in the Complaint. At no point of time the Complainant was compelled to book a Villa in Opposite Party project. The Complaint is very clear that the Complainant had already filed 9 cases as against TNEB and the same are pending and the Complainant had intended and booked the Villa only to follow up all those cases pending at various Courts mainly claiming damages to the tune of nearly Rs. 45 Crores (W.P. No. 28279/2014) would clearly indicate the malafide intention and the habitual attitude of the Complainant in filing frivolous cases even for trivial issues would tantamount to misconduct and at any event, the Complaint is baseless and without jurisdiction. The Complainant had filed this Complaint without any basis and based on cooked up documents to suit his convenience and to sustain his claim before this Hon'ble Forum and to somehow gain monetary benefits out of all such frivolous litigations and at any rate the same is unsustainable in law and cannot be entertained. The Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation and the compensation claimed is also highly exorbitant and in any event, the Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as sought for in the complaint. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with costs.    

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-32 were marked. The Opposite Party submitted its Proof Affidavit and written Arguments and Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 were marked on their side.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and the complaint filed by the  Complainant falls under the purview of Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether the Complaint is maintainable, when there is an Arbitration clause in the Agreement?

3. Whether the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service?

4. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and is entitled for any other relief/s.?

Point No.1:-

        It is not in dispute that the Complainant had booked a villa No.B62-01 with the Opposite Party on 25.10.2015.

        It is also not in dispute that the Advance Amount of Rs.1 Lakh has been paid through cheque bearing No.108668 dated 25.10.2015 by the Complainant, to the Opposite Party.

        It is also not in dispute that the said cheque was realized by the Opposite Party on 06.11.2015 and a receipt dated 06.11.2015 for the above said sum towards Advance amount, was issued by the Opposite Party.

        The disputed fact was that the complainant has not been refunded with the above said Advance Amount of Rs.1 lakh though he had cancelled the booking on 15.02.2016 on the changes in villa numbers from the one originally allotted by the Opposite Party without the consent of the Complainant. The contention of the Complainant is that he was originally allotted villa No.B62-01 by the Opposite Party and he has booked the same by issuing cheque dated 25.10.2015 for an advance amount /Token advance of Rs.1 lakh as found in Ex.A-2 and the said cheque was realized on 06.11.2015 as found in Ex.A-5. The Opposite Party has originally issued Ex.A-3 without mentioning the number of the villa and by Ex.A-4 on realization of the cheque amount i.e., on 06.11.2015 had issued the same with villa number as B62-01. Hence the further payment of Rs.5,50,000/- to be made before Expiry of 15 days i.e on or before 21.11.2015, i.e., from 06.11.2015 the date of realization of the cheque and not from the date of handing over the cheque.

        The contention of the Opposite Party is that the allegations made by the Complainant does not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, as the dispute raised by the complainant is not in nature of Consumer dispute. Further contended that the booking Application form has been signed on 25.10.2015 and the date of making further payment falls on 10.11.2015 and not as claimed by the Complainant i.e., on or before 21.11.2015.

        The first & foremost point to be considered is that the dispute raised by the Complainant is a consumer dispute and the complaint filed by the Complainant falls under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. From Exs.A-2, Ex.A-3, Ex.A-4, Ex.A-6, Ex.A-7 it is clear that the Complainant had made a token advance of Rs.1 lakh and booked a villa No.B62-01 with the Opposite Party and availed the service of the Opposite party. Under section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, defines services as follows:-

(o) “service means service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, boarding or lodging or both (housing construction) entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any services free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

        Hence the Complainant is a Consumer and the complaint filed by him falls under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point No:2:-

        Though the Application Form/Agreement, Ex.A-3 & Ex.A-4 provides Arbitration clause 33, the Complainant can maintain this complaint against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party, as the Act is regulated in the interest of the Consumers and the same is prerogative in nature. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered.

Point No.3:-

        Though the payment of Advance Booking/Token advance issued by way of cheque as found in Ex.A-2, the Opposite Party had provided the Application Form/Agreement as found in Ex.A-3  without mentioning the date and villa number and the Opposite Party had not denied Ex.A-3 and thereafter had found to be issued Ex.A-4 on realization of the cheque amount of Rs.1 lakh on 06.11.2015 with date as 25.10.2015 and villa number as B62-01, as found in ExA-4. Further the Opposite Party had contended quoting Cl.9&10 of Exs.A-3, Ex.A-4 and Ex.B-1, the application form wherein all the pages found to be filled in but Ex.A-3 originally provided to the Complainant found to be blank, that the Complainant has to adhere the payment as per payment schedule, of which the Complainant has to make further payment on or before 10.11.2015, but had failed to respond to the letters sent by the Complainant as found in Ex.A-8, Ex.A-9, however the Opposite Party had failed to produce any valid document to show that the demand made by them, when they are entitled for interest at 18% p.a on delayed payments,  in spite of the fact that every agreement related with cheque transaction is subjected to the realization of the cheque, as the cheque in the instant case found to be realized on 06.11.2015, the payment of further amount to be made by the Complainant on or before 21.11.2015 and before which date, i.e., 16.11.2015 he had received a letter dated 16.11.2015 by professional courier, marked as Ex.A-7, when he was ready and willing to pay the further amount of Rs.5,50,000/- to the Opposite Party. On receipt of Ex.A-7, he came to know that the number of his villa was found to be changed from B62-01 to B53-01. Though the Opposite Party had denied Ex.A-7 which was not sent by them, had not filed any valid proof to show that the letter sent by professional courier was on 06.11.2015 and not on 16.11.2015. Hence from Ex.A-7 it is clear that the villa No.B62-01 that was originally allotted to the complainant, by the Opposite Party for the reasons best known to them. Further the Opposite Party though denied the allegations contained in Ex.A-8, Ex.A-9, the letter sent by the Complainant, marked as Ex.A-9 found to be received by the Opposite Party under Ex.A-10 and Ex.A-11. As there was no response from the opposite Party, the Complainant had lodged a complaint and obtained a CSR as found  in Ex.A-13. For the first time under Ex.A-14, the letter dated 22.04.2016 submitted by General Manager (legal) of the Opposite Party during the enquiry before Police Authorities, mentioned that the agreement was cancelled and the advance amount /Token Amount was forfeited, whereas the Opposite Party had not sent any authenticated communication to the Complainant, even otherwise they are entitled to forfeit when they are entitled for interest on the delayed payment. Hence it is clear that the Opposite Parties who had not come forward to inform the progress of the construction and had failed to prove that they are entitled for further payment as per the payment schedule and had vaguely raised the issue of further payment to be made on or before 10.11.2015, by the Complainant, is not legal sustainable. Hence, we hold that changing the Villa without the consent of the Complainant and the non refunding of Token Advance/Advance booking Amount of Rs.1 lakh by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service and had caused serious mental agony to the complainant. Therefore we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered.

Point No.4:-

        As discussed and decided Point No.3 against the Opposite Party, the Opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.1 lakh received towards Token Advance/Advance Booking from the Complainant, and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of service along with cost of Rs.3000/-. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point No.4 is answered.   

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards Booking Amount paid by the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service  and  mental agony caused to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards costs, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

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 29^th of September 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	25.10.2015	SARE HOME – Expandable Villas
Ex.A2	25.10.2015	Cheque- Rs.1,00,000/- IOB
Ex.A3	25.10.2015	Application Form (not filled) issued the Copies on 25.10.2015
Ex.A4	06.11.2015	Application Form / to be Credited Unit / B62-01(unit Manager)
Ex.A5	06.11.2015	IOB / Rs.1,00,000- credited to M/s. SARE Jubilee Shelter Pvt Ltd, Chennai – 600 032.
Ex.A6	06.11.2015	M/s. SARE  HOMES / A/c of Unit No B 63-01 / Crescent Pare Phase – 5
Ex.A7	16.11.2015	M/s. SARE HOMES/ A/c of Unit No B 53-01/ Crescent Pare Phase-5
Ex.A8	15.02.2016	Area Manager’s – Direction
Ex.A9	29.02.2016	Representation letter
Ex.A10	05.03.2016	Acknowledgement card
Ex.A11	20.03.2016	Acknowledgement card
Ex.A12	20.04.2016	Complaint given to Inspector (clean copy)
Ex.A13	20.04.2016	CSR No.338/2015
Ex.A14	22.04.2016	General Manager’s (Legal) Letter to Inspector, Guindy
Ex.A15	22.04.2016	Police enquiry Report
Ex.A16	23.04.2016	Regarding GM (Legal) letter submitted to Inspector (Clean Copy)
Ex.A17	23.04.2016	Regarding GM(Legal) letter submitted to Inspector – Speed Post
Ex.A18	30.06.2016	Representation Letter – Regarding meeting with Area Manager in Person
Ex.A19	26.11.2004	Protest by work (copy)
Ex.A20	18.01.2009	TNEB News published in Dinamalar (Notarised copy)
Ex.A21	14.07.2014	News published in Dinamalar (copy)
Ex.A22	22.07.2014	News published in Dinakaran regarding no response to the petition submitted to Chief Minister’s special cell for about 127 times.
Ex.A23	30.10.2014	News in respect of WP.No.28279/2014 filed seeking damages of Rs.45 crores published in Dinamalar
Ex.A24	16.12.2014	Notice of protest regarding reason for hike in Electricity Charges
Ex.A25	18.12.2014	News regarding Order of Chariman, Electricity Board published in Dinamalar
Ex.A26	24.03.2015	News published in Dinakaran regarding loss caused to Electricity Board, Notice of protest and Explanation sought by Ex-chief Minister.
Ex.A27	29.02.2016	RTI – 2nd Appeal regarding Rs.39663 crores corruption
Ex.A28	18.04.2016	Representation letter to Hon’ble CJM
Ex.A29	14.05.2016	News published in Dinamalar regarding Real Estate Act
Ex.A30	23.05.2016	Contempt petition on Government Advocate for false statement
Ex.A31	16.06.2016	US.No,8/2015 list of Documents
Ex.A32	30.06.2016	Complaint given to Inspector of Police Chindadripet Police Station, Chennai-2

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1	-	Copy of Application Form (Copy)
Ex.B2	-	Copy of Cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                      MEMBER I                    PRESIDENT