Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/134/2014

KANNAN SRINIVASAN AND SUDHA SRINIVASAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW CHENNAI TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED, CHAIRMAN AND ,MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

B. CHERAN

10 Dec 2021

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

  Present:    HON’BLE THIRU.JUSTICE.R.SUBBIAH  ,             ::  PRESIDENT

                    TMT. Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                         ::   MEMBER

C.C. No.134 /2014

DATED, THE 10^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

1.Mr. Kannan Srinivasan,

   S/o R. Kannan,

 

2.Mrs. Sudha Srinivasan,

   W/o. Mr. Kannan Srinivasan,

Both complainants are husband and wife and resides at:

Apartment No.902, Tower 9,

Residences, Down Town,

Dubai –UAE,

 

Both are represented by their Authorized agent by a deed of power of Attorney filed herewith:

Mr. Rajasekar Gorantla,

S/o. Mr. G. Sudhakar,

J Block No.63, 13^th Main Road

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.                                                                  .. Complainants

 

                                                       -Versus-

New Chennai Township Private Limited,

(A wholly owned subsidiary of MARG Limited)

Reg. by its Chairman and Managing Director,

Reg. Office at:-

No.4/318, Old Mahabalipuram Road,

Kottivakkam,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                        .. Opposite party

 

Counsel for Complainant                           : M/s. Dr. B. Cheran & M. Nagarathinam

Counsel for opposite parties                      : M/s. B.R. Shankaralingam

 

ORDER

Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI   : MEMBER

          The complaint was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the advance amount of Rs.15,01728/- and to pay interest @ 8% from the date of booking till cancellation and @ 15% from cancellation till realization, Rs.1,29,288/- on account of forex loss, Rs.10,000/- towards advocate fees  along with compensation of Rs.6 lakhs for mental agony, Rs.20,000/-  as cost of the proceedings.

1.       Brief facts necessitating the filing of complaint:

          The complainants who are husband and wife residing in Dubai represented by  the power agent Mr. Rajasekar Gorantla had filed the present complaint. The complainants alleged that lured by innumerable advertisements made in various media by the developers opposite parties with regard to the Project in Royal orchard / Tapavan project located at Thiruvathoor Village, Cheyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District decided to buy one Villa and land in the said project. The promoter at that time had permission from the concerned authorities to develop a gated community of 100 villas and lay out and common amenities were completed and about 13 villas had been built and completed. The complainant was allotted villa No.43 and plot No.44 at the cost of Rs.1 crore. On 22.08.2012 Rs.15,01,728/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party and proper receipt was issued by them. There were email correspondence between the parties with regard to the progress of the construction of the villa. Though the promise was made by the opposite party that it would deliver the villa in June 2013  they  failed  to  even  get  the  necessary  approvals  from the authorities till September

2013. The complainants lost hope and interest and decided to cancel the booking and sent the cancellation Notice on 13.09.2013 which was accepted by the opposite party by mail dated 28.09.2013. For return of the advance amount there were several meetings between the parties the complainants sent a legal notice dated 10.03.2014 calling upon the opposite party with regard to the deficiency in service committed by them in not refunding the advance amount. The complainant states that though the opposite party had accepted the cancellation and had offered to close the refund process within 90 days till the date of filing of complaint no amount was paid. The complainants also alleged forex loss workings. Thus the present complaint was filed for the refund of the money invested by them with the opposite party as they were not interested in any other alternate property as suggested by the opposite parties as mentioned above. The opposite parties filed a version stating that the complainants had paid the initial booking amount only after knowing fully that the necessary approvals are pending before the authorities and the building approval was yet to be obtained. They also cited force majeure clause for the delay. They dispute Consumer Jural Relationship between the parties. They further submit that the process was getting delayed only due to bonafide reasons and therefore there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A20. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit but no document was filed on their side.

 

 

2.       Points for consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainants?
2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

3.       Point No.1

Admitted facts:

1. That the copy of Power of attorney dated 10.07.2014  was marked as Ex.A1;
2. That the copy of offer document dated 06.08.2012 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. That the copy of Receipts dated 30.08.2012 and 22.10.2012 issued by opposite party was marked as Ex.A3;
4. That the copy of E-mail correspondence with regard to change of villa number dated 24.08.2012 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. That the copy of correspondence with the HDFC Bank with regard to approval of the project dated 26.08.2012  was marked as Ex.A5;
6. That the copy of e-mail by the opposite party  dated 26.08.2012 was marked as Ex.A6;
7. That the copy of E-mail sent by the complainant’s asking for the approval process time dated 26.08.2012  was marked as Ex.A7
8. The the copy of E-mail by the  opposite party  dated 26.08.2012 was marked as Ex.A8;
9. That the copy of email by the opposite party reverting back to the complainants regarding the time schedule dated 10.09.2012 was marked as Ex.A9;
10. That the copy of E-mail by the opposite party with regard to status update dated 12.04.2013 was marked as Ex.A10;
11. That the copy of E-mail by the complainants with regard to the cancellation dated 13.09.2013 was marked as Ex.A11;
12. That the copy of E-mail the opposite party acknowledged the mail dated 28.09.2013 was marked as Ex.A12;
13. That the  copy of E-mail by the complainants requesting the opposite party to process refund the claim at the earliest dated 28.09.2013 was marked as Ex.A13;
14. That the copy of communication chart from 23.10.2013 to 10.02.2014 was marked as Ex.A14,
15. That the copy of the E-mail – by the opposite party requesting time to refund dated 06.01.2014  was marked as Ex.A15;
16. That the copy of legal notice issued by the complainants dated 10.03.2014 was marked as Ex.A16;
17. That the copy of Reply dated 09.04.2014 issued by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A17;
18. That the copy of second legal Notice issued dated 23.04.2014 by the complainants was marked as Ex.A18;
19. That the copy of calculation of claim amount was marked as Ex.A19;
20. That the Copy of Minutes of the meeting dt.08.11.2012 was marked as Ex.A20.

4.       Heard the counsel for complainant and perused the written arguments filed by both parties. However the counsel for respondent did not appear to submit oral arguments. The complainant lured by the Advertisements made by the opposite parties in various media and decided to purchase one villa and land in the project named “Royal Orchard” / Tapovan project located at Thiruvathoor village, Cheyur Taluk Kancheepuram District. It is represented that the promoter had already obtained permission from the concerned authorities and on 22.08.2012 the complainant made an advance payment of Rs.15,01,728/- to the bank account as provided by the opposite party for which the opposite party had issued receipt. Thereafter transactions and correspondence between the parties were only through emails and by an email dated 24.08.2012 the opposite party changed the villa and plot No.53 and 52 to villa No.43 and plot No.44 respectively. It is submitted by the complainant that whenever they questioned about the progress of the project the opposite party cited reasons that the permission from the authorities are awaited. Thus the opposite parties failed to fulfill their promise by handing over the project within the time framed as promised by them several times. The complainant thus lost interest in the above project and sent a cancellation notice on 13.09.2013 which was accepted by the opposite party by email dated 28.09.2013 and assured that the cancellation process including the refund of the amount will be over within 90 days. However the opposite party did not keep up its words. The opposite parties though offered an alternate project the complainant was not interested in the same. The opposite parties finally requested for 3 months additional time to refund the amount i.e., by 1^st week of April 2014 but till date the opposite party has not refunded even a single rupee to the complainant. On hearing the counsel for the complainant though the opposite party cited various reasons for the delay in the project that the permission from the authorities were not issued in time and due to force majeur reasons the project could not be completed we are of the view that the opposite party has accepted a substantial amount of Rs.15,01,728/- from the complainant and retaining the said amount and not completing the project and handover the same to the complainant as promised clearly amounts to deficiency in service. It is clearly unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party to accept the amounts without even get the necessary permission from the concerned authorities. Thus we hold that the opposite parties had committed clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and we answer point No.1 in favour of the complainant and against opposite parties.

5.  

As we have come to the conclusion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainant should be compensated in terms of money. It is evident as per the receipts Ex.A.3, issued by the opposite parties that they have received Rs.15,01,728/-from the complainant dated 30.11.2012.Thus complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount, further he is also entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for mental agony and hardship. The complainant is also entitled for interest at the rate of 18% on the amount paid to the opposite parties from the date of complaint till realization. Though the complainant had prayed for compensation on account of forex loss, the same was not proved by adequate documents. Hence we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation towards the said category. We also award cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost. Thus we answer point No.2 in favour of the complainants.

         

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed as follows :-

1. The opposite parties shall refund the amount of Rs. 15,01,728/-  with 18% interest from the date of complaint till realization;
2. Compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the mental agony & hardship;
3. Cost of Rs.10,000/-   towards litigation expenses.  

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                  R. SUBBIAH            

          MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

List of Documents filed by the Complainants:-  

                                               

     Ex.A1          10.07.2014       Copy of Power of Attorney

 Ex.A2          06.08.2012       Copy of offer Document

                            

 

 Ex.A3           30.11.2012        Copy of Receipts issued by Opposite party

Ex.A.4           24.08.2012        Copy of E-Mail – Change of Villa

Ex.A.5          26.08.2012         Copy of E-mail – whether the project was approved by         

                                            HDFC Bank

 

Ex.A.6          26.08.2012         Copy of E-mail – the opposite party reply

Ex.A.7          26.08.2012         Copy of E-mail – the complainants asked for the

                                            approval  process time

 

Ex.A.8          26.08.2012         Copy of E-mail – the opposite party reply

Ex.A.9          10.09.2012         Copy of E-mail – the opposite party reverted back to the

                                            Complainants regarding the time schedule.

Ex.A.10        12.04.2013        Copy of E-mail – the status update

Ex.A.11        13.09.2013        Copy of E-mail – the complainant sent a cancellation       

                                            notice

Ex.A.12        28.09.2013        Copy of E-mail – the opposite party acknowledged the

                                           mail

 

Ex.A.13        28.09.2013        Copy of E-mail the complainants requested the opposite        

                                            Party to process the claim at the earliest

 

Ex.A.14        23.10.2013        Copy of communication chart

                        To

                   10.02.2014      

Ex.A.15        06.01.2014        Copy of E-mail – the Opposite party requesting time

Ex.A.16        10.03.2014        Copy of Legal Notice issued by the complainants

Ex.A.17        09.04.2014        Copy of Reply issued by the opposite party

Ex.A.18        23.04.2014        Copy of second Legal Notice issued by the complainants

Ex.A.19            -                   Copy of Calculation of claim amount.

Ex.A20           08.11.2012           Copy of Minutes of the meeting

 

Opposite party Documents :

NIL   

 

 

 S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                  R. SUBBIAH            

          MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT