BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 13th day of February, 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAIANT NO.3/2013
Dhanalakshmi, W/o Ramamurthy,
No.128-A, Door No.11,
7th Cross Street, Lakshmi Nagar,
Porur, Chennai. …………. Complainant
Vs.
1. S.K.Classic Builders & Construction,
Rep.by its Proprietor,
No.5/30, Second Street, V.V.P.Nagar,
Thattanchavady, Puducherry – 9.
2. Priyanka Promoters & Homes Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.5/30, Second Street, V.V.P.Nagar,
Thattanchavady, Puducherry – 9.
3. S.Ganesan, S/o Sathasivam,
No.1, First Cross Street,
Bharathiyar Street, Vasanth Nagar,
Villianur, Puducherry. …………… Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
TMT. K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
THIRU K.ELUMALAI,
MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Tvl. U.Mohan Ilayaraja & A.K.Saravanan,
Advocates, Puducherry.
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex-Parte
O R D E R
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties directing them to hand over the schedule-II mentioned property to the complainant by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and alternatively execute sale-deed with respect to UDS which is mentioned in Schedule-I; to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered; to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. from 28.10.2011 till the handing over Schedule-II of the property to the complainant for loss of rental income; and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards costs.
2. This matter has been listed before us for passing exparte order.
3. The case of the complainant is that one Natarajan was the colleague of complainant's son-in-law, namely, Gopu and through the said Natarajan the 3rd opposite party was introduced himself as proprietor of O.P.1- construction company. The 3rd opposite party claimed to be the absolute owner of the properties mentioned in the schedule I to the complaint by virtue of sale-deed, dt. 24.04.2009 and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was also represented that the 3rd opposite party is the proprietor of the 1st opposite party and Managing Director of 2nd opposite party. It has been further represented to the complainant by the 3rd opposite party that he will put up construction in the schedule - I property in the complaint and hand over possession of the Undivided Share (UDS) over the land and the flat put up thereon, which is mentioned as Schedule - II to the complaint. By representing so, the 3rd opposite party entered into an agreement with the complainant by which the 3rd opposite party promised to deliver the finished flat and the UDS over the land on payment of Rs.23,25,000/- by the complainant.
4. On believing the representation made by the 3rd opposite party, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.12,25,000/- on various dates. Though the complainant was prepared to pay the balance consideration as promised by her, the 3rd opposite party failed to hand over the finished flat. Hence, a notice has been sent to all the opposite parties seeking either to hand over the flat or return back the money which was paid by the complainant. The 3rd opposite party received the notice but failed to reply for the same. The opposite parties 1and 2 have evaded to receive the notice. Therefore, the complainant is constrained to approach this Commission for execution of the sale-deed in respect of the undivided share over the flat and finished flat after receiving the balance consideration or pay the damages for mental agony and also the costs.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the documents. Ex.C1 reveals that there was a construction agreement between the complainant and the 3rd opposite party. It reveals that the 3rd opposite party being the proprietor of the 1st opposite party and Managing Director of 2nd opposite party, has promised to put up construction in the Schedule-I property and hand over the same to the complainant. It further reveals that a sum of Rs.23,25,000/- has to be payable by the complainant. The payment schedule also spelt out in the agreement. Ex.C2 would reveal that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-,which has been acknowledged by the 3rd opposite party by passing a receipt, dt. 16.03.2011. Ex.C3 – the receipt, dt. 31.03.2011 passed by the 3rd opposite party would reveal that he has received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and Ex.C4 is the receipt dated 03.04.2012 for Rs.25,000/- issued by 3rd opposite party for the amount received from the complainant. Ex.C5 is the office copy of the legal notice issued to the opposite parties and to one Natarajan. Ex.C6 is the returned cover sent to 1st opposite party, Ex.C7 is the returned cover sent to the 2nd opposite party and Ex.C8 is the postal acknowledge for the notice sent to 3rd opposite party.
6. These documents clearly establish the case of the complainant. Having received a huge amount from the complainant, the opposite parties have cheated the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties are bound to execute the sale-deed in respect of the undivided share over the land in Schedule-I and the finished flat constructed thereon which is mentioned as Schedule-II to the complaint. As far as claim of damages towards mental agony suffered by the complainant is concerned, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was claimed by the complainant. We are of the view that definitely the complainant would have suffered mental agony for the failure on the part of the opposite parties in completing the construction and handing over the same to the complainant. Considering the same and also considering the fact that the complainant has paid initially a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- three years back and also paid a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/-which is also two years, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is directed to be payable by the opposite parties towards damages for mental agony suffered by the complainant. As far as claim of Rs.10,000/- p.m. for rent from 28.10.2011 till handing over of the flat is concerned, we are of the view that the opposite parties having promised to hand over the flat in October, 2011, they have to be definitely pay some amount for failure to hand over the flat to the complainant in time. Hence, a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. which is reasonable and also to be payable by the opposite parties from November, 2011 till the date of handing over of the flat to the complainant. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the complainant towards litigation expenses. The complainant shall pay the balance sale consideration to the opposite parties at the time of execution of sale-deed in her favour. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the orders of this Commission within two months from this date.
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2014.
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(K.ELUMALAI)
MEMBER
LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S WITNESSES:
CW1 – Dhanalakshmi, Complainant, proof-affidavit filed on 23.01.2014
COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS:
Ex.C1 – Copy of Construction Agreement, dt. 28.07.2011, executed between the
complainant and 3rd opposite party
Ex.C2 – Copy of Receipt, dt.16.03.2011 for Rs.7,00,000/-, issued by 2nd opposite party
to the complainant.
Ex.C3 - Copy of Receipt, dt.31.03.2011 for Rs.5,00,000/-, issued by 2nd opposite party
to the complainant.
Ex.C4 - Copy of Receipt, dt.16.03.2011 for Rs.7,00,000/-, issued by 2nd opposite party
to the complainant
Ex.C5 – Copy of complainant's lawyer's notice, dt.28.12. 2012 issued to all the opposite
Parties
Ex.C6 – Returned postal cover addressed to 1st opposite party by complainant's laywer
Ex.C7 - Returned postal cover addressed to 2nd opposite party by complainant's
laywer
Ex.C8 – Postal Acknowledgement card signed by 1st opposite party
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(K.ELUMALAI)
MEMBER
