R.Subburaj filed a consumer case on 08 Jun 2017 against R.Ramesh in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/72/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Jul 2017.
Complaint presented on: 13.03.2015
Order pronounced on: 08.06.2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
THURSDAY THE 08th DAY OF JUNE 2017
C.C.NO.72/2015
R.Subburaj,
S/o.S.Ramasamy,
103 B, First Floor,
Jayaram Nagar,
4th Cross Street,
Kolathur,
Chennai – 600 099.
….. Complainant
..Vs..
R.Ramesh,
S/o G.Ranganathan,Proprietor,
Dhanalakshmi & Co.,
Plot No.68, B Block,
Thanikachalam Nagar, Kolathur,
Chennai – 600 110.
| .....Opposite Party
|
|
Date of complaint : 05.05.2015
Counsel for Complainant : M.T.Arunan
Counsel for Opposite Party : A.Balasingh Ramanajam,
S.Shanmugam
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to hand over the reserved car park area to him and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for constructing seventh flat in the second floor unauthorizedly caused mental agony to him and with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The Opposite Party developed a project in the name and style of “SHARAN SHELTERS” to build a total number of 6 flats. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party to purchase a flat in the first floor measuring 880 sq ft along with 461 sq ft. UDS in the land. The complainant and the Opposite Party entered into a sale agreement and construction agreement between them on 27.09.2013. The Complainant paid total consideration of Rs. 38,34,500/- including a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the reserve car parking area. Further the Complainant also paid charges for water supply, electricity connection, stamp duty and registration charges and including above said amount and thus totally paid a sum of Rs. 45,60,000/- in all to the Opposite Party.
2. The Complainant made it clear that he would require a covered car park area and to which the Opposite Party assured to provide the reserve car park area to him. The Complainant is the first person to book a flat in the aforesaid project. Though as per plan the Opposite Party was permitted to build only 6 flats, he has unauthorizedly constructed a seventh flat on the second floor of open terrace. The Opposite Party could not hand over the reserve car park area to the Complainant inspite of that he had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- exclusively for car park. As per the approved plan only four car parking area were marked. Among three car parking area one of the car park area was allotted to him on the basis of agreement.
3. Subsequently the Opposite Party allotted seven car parking area without any approval and he had also sold the unauthorized construction of flat in the second floor to another person for Rs.21,00,000/- without any approval. Hence the Opposite Party committed series violation in constructing one more flat unauthorizedly and also not allotting reserved car parking area earmarked for the Complainant as per the agreement dated 27.09.2013 is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to hand over the reserved car park area to him and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for constructing seventh flat in the second floor unauthorizedly caused mental agony to him and with cost of the Complaint.
4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant approached him and entered sale agreement and construction agreement on 27.09.2013 for constructing a flat measuring 880 sq.ft in the first floor of the project along with 461 sq ft. of UDS share. The Complainant has not questioned the quality of construction and materials used in the project.
5. The Opposite Party handed over the possession to the Complainant without receiving the balance consideration in the month of June 2014 and exclusive car parking area to an extent of 8 X 12 earmarked and allotted to the Complainant. Having received the agreed car park area, the Complainant has no vested right to file this vexatious Complaint. The other averments made in the Complaint are denied. This Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.
6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?
7. POINT NO :1
The admitted facts are that the Opposite Party developed a project in the name and style of “SHARAN SHELTERS” to build a total number of 6 flats and the Complainant approached the Opposite Party to purchase a flat in the first floor measuring 880 sq ft along with 461 sq ft. UDS in the land and the complainant and the Opposite Party entered Ex.A3 sale agreement and Ex.A4 construction agreement between them on 27.09.2013 and the Opposite Party also executed and registered Ex.A4 sale deed in respect of 461 sq ft. in favour of the Complainant on 03.12.2013 and the Complainant also paid total consideration of Rs.45,60,000/- including a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the reserve car parking area, water supply, electricity connection, stamp duty and registration charges etc.
8. The Complainant alleged deficiencies against the Opposite Party is that
9. The Opposite Party completed the construction of the flat and as per agreement the Opposite Party handed over the F1 flat to the Complainant in the first floor is not in dispute. Further, as per Ex.A2 construction agreement the Opposite Party agreed to allot a reserved car parking area to the Complainant. The Opposite Party specifically pleaded in his written version that he had handed over earmarked car parking area to an extent of 8 X 12 to the Complainant. The Complainant would contend that the reserved car parking area was not handed over to him. When the Opposite Party handed over earmarked car parking area of 8 X 12 is the reserved car parking area. Further, the Complainant had not denied the written version of the Opposite Party about the car parking area of 8 x 12 was handed over to him at the time of possession of the flat. He has not denied the said fact of handing over the car park in his subsequently filed proof affidavit of the Complainant after filing of the written version. Further the Complainant himself stated in his Complaint para 11 that one of the car parking area was allotted to him on the base of agreement. Therefore, as discussed above the Opposite Party has already handed the car parking area to the Complainant and hence in this respect the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency.
10. The next contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party unauthorizedly constructed the seventh flat in the second floor of terrace against the sanctioned plan permission to construct only six flats. The construction of seventh flat was not specifically denied by the Opposite Party in his written version and further he would plead in his written version that if at all illegal construction constructed by the Opposite Party the Complainant can lodge Complaint before the concerned authority and cannot agitate the same before this Forum. Considering the above contentions it may be a fact that the Opposite Party constructed a flat unauthorizedly in the second floor.
11. However, this Forum is bound to see only the deficiency committed by the Opposite Party to the Complainant in respect of the flat purchased by him. In respect of the agreement entered between them, the Opposite Party handed over the flat and car park to the Complainant and the Complainant also is in occupation of the flat. In respect of unauthorized and illegal construction against the sanctioned plan, it is only such authority who gave permission to construct the building alone competent to question the same. Therefore, the Complainant can very well work out his remedy if any in respect of unauthorized construction before the concerned authority. In such circumstances, it is held that additional construction of the flat in the second floor by the Opposite Party cannot be considered as deficiency, in so far as this Complainant is concerned. Hence in respect of the unauthorized construction also this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency. Therefore, from the forgoing discussions we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.
12. POINT NO:2
Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 08th day of June 2017.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 13.03.2015 The Complainant given to the Statement
Ex.A2 dated 27.09.2013 Construction Agreement
Ex.A3 dated 27.09.2013 Sale Agreement
Ex.A4 dated 03.12.2013 Sale Deed
Ex.A5 dated 21.05.2013 Bank of India (Kamanaicken Branch Infavour of
Dhanalakshmi & Co A/C No.802720100000003)
Ex.A6 dated 22.05.2013 Advance amount paid infavour of
M/s.Dhanalakshmi & Co.,
Ex.A7 dated 18.12.2013 The Thoothukudi District Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd-Draft Infavour of Dhanalakshmi & Co
A/C.No.802720100000003
Ex.A8 dated 19.12.2013 The Thoothukudi District Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd-Draft Infavour of Dhanalakshmi & Co
A/C.No.579901010050151
Ex.A9 dated 31.12.2013 Cheque paid amount details for HDFC Bank in
Statement of Accounts (from 01.10.2013 to
31.08.2014) in reference
Ex.A10 dated 19.02.2014 The Thoothukudi District Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd-Draft Infavour of Dhanlakshmi & Co
A/C.No.801720100000003
Ex.A11 dated 27.02.2014 Union Bank of India (Kolathur Branch) infavour
of Dhanalakshmi & Co.A/c.579901010050151
Ex.A12 dated 21.07.2014 Cheque paid amount details for TNSC Bank in
Statement of Accounts (from 13.07.2014 to
31.07.2014) in reference
Ex.A13 dated 04.03.2014 Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds
Infavour of M/s.United Bank of India (with
Insurance amount +13,000/-)
Ex.A14 dated NIL I.D, proof if Complainant (I.D.No.XOE
1257252)
Ex.A15 dated 20.03.2014 Tamil Nadu Registration Department
Encumbrance Certificate details
Ex.A16 dated NIL Flat and Car parking plan details
Ex.A17 dated NIL Area Statement (COC) Project Details
Ex.A18 dated 14.03.2014 Deposits of Title Deeds (DD Challan
No.206141)
Ex.A19 dated 14.03.2014 Deposits of Title Deeds in Credit bill
No.2014863
Ex.A20 dated NIL Unauthorized flat photos in 2nd floor (S3)
Ex.A21 dated NIL No way to the car parking areas (photos)
Ex.A22 dated 07.03.2014 Union Bank of India, Kolathur branch
Infavour of Dhanalakshmi & co.,
A/c.No.579901010050151
EX.A23 dated NIL Electricity Bill
Ex.A24 dated NIL Chennai Metro water supply bill
Ex.A25 dated 04.03.2014 Certificate Under Section 42 of stamp Act
Ex.A26 dated NIL Memorandum of Deposits of Title Deeds
Bank details Amount with bank statement
details
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :
Ex.B1 dated NIL Photographs with CD
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.