Date of Filling     :  15.04.2016.

                                                                                            Date of Disposal :  03.03.2017.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                    TMT. S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                           …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint no.32/2016

(Dated this Friday the 03^rd day of March 2017)

1.  Mr. Rammohan Raghavan,

     S/o. Mr. Balasubramaniyam Raghavan,

2.  Mrs. Roshini Rammohan,

     W/o. Mr. Rammohan Raghavan,

     D/o. Mr. M. Sivaramakrishnan,

     Both are residing at

     No.1099, West End Colony,

     Anna Nagar West Extension,

     Chennai - 600 050.

Represented by the 2^nd complainant’s father

& Power of Attorney

Mr. M. Sivaramakrishnan,

S/o. Mr. S. Mahadevan,

New No.16, Old No.10,

Baskar Street,

Nehru Nagar,

Saligramam,

Chennai -600 093.                                                                … Complainants.

                                                          / Versus /

Mr. J. Michael Ranjit Singh,

S/o. (Late)  G. Jaisingh,

M/s. Golden Edifice,

No.144, S. George Rathinam Road,

Golden George Nagar,

Mogappair East,

Chennai -600 107.                                                                … Opposite party.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 13.02.2017 in the presence of Mr. K. Murugan, Counsel for the Complainant and the  opposite party is set Exparte for non appearance and for non filing of Written Version and upon hearing arguments, having perused the documents, evidences and written arguments of the complainant, this Forum delivered the following,

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party for seeking lift facility in the complainant’s building as per the construction agreement and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant with cost Rs.10,000/-.

2.     The brief averments of the complaint as follows:-

          The complainants have purchased a 1240 sq. ft., flat-B, Second Floor, “Golden Paddington” at Plot no.1050, 6^th Main Road, Eri Scheme, Mogappair East, Chennai – 600 050 for 2^nd complainant’s father Mr. M. Sivaramakrishnan for his peaceful life in his old age to spent his old aged days happily with all necessary amenities, from the complainant’s hard earned money.  They have entered the Builders Agreement with the opposite party for constructing the “Three Bed Room Flat (Second Floor) measuring about 1240 sq.ft. along with covered car park in the ground floor with all facilities as mentioned in the builders agreement with lift facility upto the second floor and the on 02.12.2010 the complainants entered the Sale Deed with the opposite party and purchased the aforesaid flat for a sum of Rs.14,35,000/- for undivided share of land 699.76 sq.ft. and build up are 1240 sq. ft. construction cost for a sum of Rs.48,42,500/- and after completing the payments the opposite party has handed over the flat to the complainants on 19.03.2014 with his possession permission certificate.

          3.       After issuing the certificate, the complainants went to see the flat and got shock and surprise that the opposite party has not provided with lift facility to reach the second floor for their flat and due to the old age the 2^nd complainant’s father Mr. M. Sivaramakrishnan could not able to reach their flat and till now the complainant not used the flat for their purpose and immediately the complainants approached the opposite party to enquire about the lift facility, the opposite party promised that he will provide  the lift within a month and the complainants waited for a month but he opposite party has not make any arrangement to provide the lift facility, even the complainants have paid the cost of the lift which also included in the entire cost of the flat.

4.       The entire cost of the lift facility is around a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- including lift machineries and electrical items and total occupants in the building is 6 flats and as per the opposite party collected share amount is for a sum of Rs.1,66,000/- from each occupant of the flats and he has not provided the promised the lift facility to the occupants including the complainants.  They have taken many steps to give pressure to the opposite party to provide the lift facility by vocally pressurizing them and made several visits to their office but the same went in vain and since the complainant wanted to maintain good relationship with the opposite party the complainants have not sent any written representation to them.

5.       Till date, the above deficiency of service  has not been rectified by the above opposite party and many times the complainants have informed the same to the opposite party through phone and personal approach.  The act of the opposite party is nothing but deficiency of service which has caused him mental agony.  Hence, the complainant has no other alternative except approaching this Hon’ble Forum for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

9.       In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed the proof affidavit as his evidence and documents from Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked on his side. 

10.     At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the  opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

     2.  To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

11.     Written arguments filed and also oral arguments adduced on the side of the complainant.  Though the  opposite party was remained Exparte, this Forum wants to dispose the case fully on merits.

12.     Point no.1:-

On perusal of the averments made in the complaint as well as the proof affidavit filed by the complainant as his evidence, it is learnt that the complainants have purchased a flat measuring 1240 sq. ft. namely “Golden Paddington”, No.1050, 6^th main Road, Eri Scheme, Mogappair East, Chennai – 600 050 for the father of the 2^nd complainant Mr. M. Sivaramakrishnan for his peaceful and happy life in his olden age and thereby, they have entered the Builders Agreement dated:18.03.2010 with the opposite party which is marked as Ex.A1.  As per Ex.A1, Builders Agreement it has been provided covered car park in the  ground floor with all facilities as mentioned in the builders agreement with lift facility upto the second floor.  Thereafter, on 02.12.2010 in the Sale Deed executed between the parties for the purchase of undivided share of land 699.76 sq.ft.  by paying a sum of Rs.14,35,000/- towards full consideration for the said UDS and to pay a sum of Rs.48,42,500/- towards the construction cost for the building upto area measuring 1240 sq. ft.  The Sale Deed is marked as Ex.A2.   The Encumbrance Certificate is marked as Ex.A3. 

13.     It is further learnt that after completion of the construction work on receiving, the full payments by the opposite party, the flat was handed over to the complainant on 19.03.2014 with his Possession Certificate which is marked as Ex.A4.  The property tax paid by the complainant is marked as Ex.A5.  The Water, Sewage Tax and Electricity Bills are marked as Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 Series.  The Family Card and the Voter ID of the complainant are marked as Ex.A8 & Ex.A9.

14.     In furtherance, it is narrated by the complainant in his Proof Affidavit that, after taking possession and they went to see the flat and got shock and surprise that the opposite party has not provided the lift facility to reach the second floor for their flat as agreed in Ex.A1, Builders Agreement and hence, the 2^nd complainant’s father could not be able to reach the flat in his olden age and caused much hardship.  Then immediately, the complainant had approached the opposite party to enquire about the non providing of the lift facility and the opposite party promised that he will provide the lift within a month and even the complainants waited for a month but the opposite party has not make any arrangement to provide lift facility.  Though the entire cost of the lift facility have been collected by the opposite party from the flat owners and made promise for providing the lift facility to the occupants, the opposite party has not come forward to provide the said lift facility as agreed in Ex.A1.  In spite of repeated demands and approached either through phone calls as well as in person.   All these steps taken by the complainant went in vain and therefore, the complainant was constrained to come forward this complaint for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

15.     From the foregoing evidence and documents filed on the side of the complainants, it is crystal clear that on purchase of the flat from the opposite party through Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 in which, the opposite party has made promise to provide lift facility including all amenities  but the lift facility has not been provided even after handed over of the flat to the complainants.  Furthermore, after taking possession of the building, the complainant has made several attempts and approached the opposite party eventhen the opposite party has not chosen to make necessary arrangements to provide the lift facility though the opposite party has collected the entire amount towards the cost of the lift facility. 

16.     In such circumstances, the opposite party has neither appeared before this Forum nor adduced any evidence to disprove the allegations made in the complaint inspite of notice served to the opposite party which clearly shows that the opposite party has not come forward to comply to the promise made in Ex.A1, Builders Agreement regarding lift facility.  Therefore, it  goes without saying that there is no contra evidence to the evidence put forth on the side of the complainant.  Hence the act of the opposite party clearly amounts for deficiency of service and the same has been proved by the complainants by means of reliable evidence.  Thus, the point no.1 is answered accordingly. 

17.     Point No.2:-

As per the conclusion arrived in point no.1, it is crystal clear that the lift facility as agreed by the opposite party in Ex.A1, Builders Agreement has not been provided and therefore, the complainants are entitled for the relief as prayed for in the complaint.  In that aspect, with reasonable compensation for having suffered mental agony and hardship by the act of the opposite party with cost.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to provide lift facility in the complainant’s building as per Ex.A1, the Builders Agreement within a month from the date of receipt of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainants due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) totally of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only).

 The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9.5% p.a.  till the date of payment.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 03^rd  March 2017.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT