Date of Filing     27.02.2024

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 16.07.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                         …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL.,                                                                             ...….MEMBER-I

CC.No.105/2024

THIS TUESDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF JULY 2024

Mr.P.Palani,

Residing at 4 Veera Chetty Street,

Puliyanthope, RTO Office backside,

Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 012.                                                               ......Complainant.

                                                                            //Vs//

Rahaa Associate Layout Private Limited,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

No.125A, Poonamallee High Road,

Varalakshmi Nagar, Maduravayol,

Chennai 600 095.                                                                                .…..Opposite Party.

Counsel for the complainant                                   :    M/s.Regalwhiz Law Chambers.

Counsel for the opposite party                               :    M/s.S.Lawrence, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 04.07.2024 in the presence of M/s.Regalwhiz Law Chambers, counsel for the complainant and M/s.S.Lawrence counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in selling a plot which was not saleable and also not refunding the amount paid by the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Complainant decided to purchase a plot measuring 800 square feet in plot No.478, situated in No.118, Pallur Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District from the opposite party company M/s.RAHAA ASSOICATES LAYOUT PRIVATE LIMITED on 25.08.2020 and paid Rs.5,000/- as advance.  Remaining amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to be paid in monthly instalment.  Complainant paid 27 months totally a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-+Rs.5000/-=1,40,000/-.  However, complainant came to know that the said property could not be sold and hence insisted opposite party for registration.  The opposite party replied that they would register some other property.  Complainant rejected the offer and requested for refund of the amount paid which was accepted by opposite party. However, till today no refund was made and hence the present complaint was filed for refund of the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- along with Rs.1,00,000/- compensation and Rs.5,000/- cost.

  The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

3. The opposite party admitted booking of plot by the complainant on 25.08.2020.  The payment of EMI’s were also admitted.  The opposite party accepts for refund of the amount paid and ready to pay Rs.1,19,000/- through online or cheque after deducting 15% of commissioning.  Thus alleging no deficiency in service on their part, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

4. On the side of complainant Proof Affidavit was filed along with documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A5. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed along with documents marked as Ex.B1 & Ex.B2.

Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the opposite party had committed deficiency in service in selling the plot which was not saleable and also in not refunding the amount paid by the complainant towards purchase of the plot?
2. To what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

            5. Heard both.

6. The opposite party admitted that they agreed for refund of the amount after deducting 15% commission (i.e.) Rs.21,000/-and pay Rs.1,19,000/- to complainant.  Thus they allege no deficiency in service on their part.

7. On appreciation of the entire pleadings and materials, the factum of booking of plot, payment of 27 months EMIs, request and acceptance for refund by complainant and opposite party were not in dispute. However, the dispute is only with the amount to be refunded.  It is alleged by the complainant only after payment of 27 EMI’s he found that the plot was not saleable and when he insisted for registration, the opposite party was showing some other property. It is also an admitted fact that the opposite party had entered into sale agreement with the complainant for sale of the plot. In such circumstances, the opposite party when sought for registration of the plot for which sale agreement entered after booking showing some other property could not be accepted to be a proper service.  In such scenario deducting the commission of 15% would not be justified.  Thus we hold that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is selling a plot which could not be registered and offering some other plot for registration.  No dispute was made by opposite party for the allegation raised by the complainant that the plot sold by him could not be registered or sold.  Hence, he could seek shelter under the default clauses found in the Agreement for sale.  Thus this point is answered in favour of the complainant holding that the complaint allegations has been successfully proved by him.

Point No.2:-

8.  As the deficiency in service alleged against the opposite party had been successfully established we direct the opposite party to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant Rs.1,40,000/- within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Further for committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice we also award a compensation of Rs.25,000/-for the resultant mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.  Litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- is also awarded.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them

a) To refund a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-(Rupees one lakh forty thousand only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;

c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant;

d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 12% per annum will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 16^th day of July2024.

     -Sd-                                                                                                                    -Sd-

 MEMBER-I                                                                                                        PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainants:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party :-

      -Sd-                                                                                                                      -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                           PRESIDENT