Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/195/2016

R.Sathish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.VIP Global Reality - Opp.Party(s)

V.Balaji, A.Sermaraj

02 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 29.06.2016

Date of Reservation      : 20.07.2022

Date of Order               : 02.08.2022

 

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. 195/2016

TUESDAY, THE 2^nd DAY OF AUGUST 2022

R.Sathish Kumar,

S/o. Rajagopal,

No.19, Ramapuram Ramasamy Street,

Saidapet,

Chennai – 600 015.                                                                                                                                                       ... Complainant                               

 

..Vs..

M/s. VIP Global Realty LLP,

Rep. by its Chairman,

Bhuvaneshwari Complex, 2^nd Floor,

New No.4, Old No.19,

Dr.Thomas Road, T.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                                                                                                                    ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. V. Balaji

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant, 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 refund the sum of Rs.20,000/- with interest 18% per annum to the Complainant from 13.06.2016 onwards and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- for causing mental agony and to pay Rs.35,000/- for rendering deficiency in service and to pay Rs.15,000/- towards cost.

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

The case of the Complainant is that during 2014 the Opposite Party made wide publicity that they are promoting premium Villa Plots near Vandallur and made representation that this project was launched after the successful launch of Blue Horizon Phase-I. As the Complainant was willing to purchase a plot of 1200 Sq.Ft, he made a booking advance amount of Rs.10,000/- on 09.04.2016 and received a receipt in respect of Plot No.24 from the Opposite Party. The Complainant made another payment of Rs.90,000/- on 15.04.2016. Thus, the Complainant has paid the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. He had applied for banking loan for the purchase of plot No.24. For various reasons, the bank has declined to sanction a housing loan to the Complainant. Hence, he made a request to the Opposite Party on 14.05.2016 to refund the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, on 13.06.2016 the Opposite Party refunded the sum of Rs.80,000/- only and illegally withheld Rs.20,000/-, further obtained the affidavit from the Complainant that the sum of Rs.80,000/- will be considered as full and final settlement. He is working as a driver and earning very nominal amount and the same has been protested with the Opposite Party for forfeiting the sum of Rs.20,000/-, by virtue of cancellation the Opposite Party already got benefited by advance amount making profit of sizable amount per Sq.ft. Failure to return the entire advance amount and forfeiture of 20% money amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the Complaint.

3.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4  were marked.

4.     Opposite Party served with sufficient notice and they have been called absent and said Ex-parte.

5.    Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether the Complaint filed by the Complainant falls under the Purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

2. Whether the Opposite Party committed deficiency of service?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief claimed in the Complaint and for any other relief/s?

Point No.1 :-

The Contention of the Complainant is that on seeing the publicity of promoting premium villa in vandalur made by the Opposite Party, he had booked a Plot No.24 measuring 1200 sq.ft with the Opposite Party by paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance to the Opposite Party, as found in Ex.A-1, the receipt dated 09.04.2016 for Rs.10,000/- and Ex.A-2, Pass book entry for having paid Rs.90,000/- 0n 15.04.2016. He had applied for bank loan for the purchase of said Plot booked with the Opposite Party, but for various reasons the bank had declined to sanction loan and hence he had requested for refund of the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party had forfeited a sum of Rs.20,000/- and refunded only Rs.80,000/- and had obtained an affidavit for the said sum of Rs.80,000/- as full and final settlement. The forfeiture of Rs.20,000/- is protested and the failure to return entire advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and forfeiture of 20% amounts to deficiency of service.

Though the issue raised by the Complainant regarding forfeiture of advance amounts to deficiency of service, the most important issue to be considered is whether the transaction of purchase of Immovable property falls under the Purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

On careful reading of the complaint and the Exhibits marked in support of the claim made by the Complainant, it is clear that he had booked a Plot bearing No.24 measuring 1200 sq.ft with the Opposite Party and had an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-to the Opposite Party, as found in Ex.A-1, the receipt dated 09.04.2016 for Rs.10,000/- and Ex.A-2, Pass book entry for having paid Rs.90,000/- on 15.04.2016. Since the transaction made with the Opposite Party was for purchase a Plot being an immovable property, the same does not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, even the judgment cited in the Complaint it only speaks about that the nature of building activities comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the complaint filed by the Complainant does not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered. 

Point No.2 :-

On careful reading of the complaint, it is clear that the Complainant had approached for purchase of plot from the Opposite Party by obtaining Bank loan, and the Complainant having failed in his attempt of obtaining loan had requested the Opposite Party for refund the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by him. Further in the Complaint that the Complainant had averred that a sum of Rs.80,000/- received as full and final settlement and had executed an affidavit to the Opposite Party to that effect, under protest, but the Complainant had a self declaration affidavit, marked as Ex.A- 4, wherein it is mentioned that he had received a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the Opposite Party against the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and it will be considered as full and final settlement and in the following it is also mentioned the receipt issued by the Opposite Party for the refunded amount of Rs.80,000/- was misplaced and he indmenify, keep indemnified, defend and hold harmless to the Opposite Party, not to claim any demands, claims, losses, costs, interest, etc., against the loss of receipt and the above said refund amount for plot No.24 in Blue Horizon – Phase -II Project. On Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission holds that the Complainant having failed in his attempt of getting loan sanction and having received a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the Opposite Party as full and final settlement, the contention of the Complainant that he had received the said amount under protest and forfeiture of Rs.20,000/- amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party, is not sustainable and there is no deficiency of service on the Part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency of service.

 

 

Point No.3:-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the Complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s. 

In the result the Complaint is dismissed.

 Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 02^nd of August 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	09.04.2016	Copy of advance amount receipt
Ex.A2	15.04.2016	Copy of SB Account
Ex.A3	14.05.2016	Copy of Complainant letter
Ex.A4	13.06.2016	Copy of affidavit

 

 

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

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT