DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L. ..… MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com. ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.93/2022
THIS TUESDAY, THE 06th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Mr.Jaya Venkatesan,
S/o.Mr.A.R.Shanmugavel,
No.41-B, Shiva Vishnu Koil Street,
M.G.R.Nagar, Chennai -600 078. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.Sarala Housing Private Limited,
Rep.by its Managing Director C.Rajendran,
No.1/8, 1st Floor, Welcome Colony,
Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar (W) Extension,
Chennai 600 101.
2.Mr.C.Rajendran, Managing Director,
Sarala Housing Private Limited,
No.1/8, 1st Floor, Welcome Colony,
Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar (W) Extension,
Chennai 600 101.
3.Mrs.M.Sarala, Director,
Sarala Housing Private Limited,
W/o.C.Rajendran,
No.1/8, 1st Floor, Welcome Colony,
Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar (W) Extension,
Chennai 600 101. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.Ajoy Kumar Gnanam , Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : M/s.S.Ravichandran, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 26.08.2022 in the presence of M/s.Ajoy Kumar Gnanam counsel for the complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in not registering the allotted plot in favour of the complainant in spite of receipt of entire consideration amount along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay the sale consideration amount of Rs.2,40,000/- with 24% interest per annum from September 2018 till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony due to the deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Sum and substance of the complaint:-
It was submitted by the complainant that the opposite parties had purchased an extent of 37 cents of land in Survey No.115/5 in Old No.174, New No.121 in Palnellor Village, Sriperumbundur Union and Taluk, Kancheepuram District under a Sale Deed dated 09.05.2011 registered as document No.1114/2011 in SRO, Chunguvarchathram. All the opposite parties developed the said land and formed a layout as “Sri Balaji Nagar” and convinced the complainant to purchase a plot in instalment basis and thus the complainant purchased a plot No.549 having an extent of 1200 square feet for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,40,000/-. The agreement was entered on 23.08.2011 for sale of the plot. The total amount was paid in 86 monthly instalments of Rs.2500/- per month which was agreed as per the clause 7 of the agreement and that after successful payment of the entire sale consideration the plot would be registered in the name of complainant. The opposite party was assured that the DTCP approval process for the schedule land was in process and based on the promise and assurance the complainant paid the entire amount. However, till date the opposite parties did not complete the registration process in order to obtain the DTCP approval for the schedule land. The complainant whenever approached the opposite parties they failed to provide any response and hence the complainant gave a police complaint against the opposite parties. However, no action was taken by the police due to the pressure exerted by the opposite parties on the police officials. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs as mentioned below;
To direct the opposite parties to pay the sale consideration amount of Rs.2,40,000/- with 24% interest per annum from September 2018 till the date of realization;
To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony due to the deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Defence of the opposite parties:
The opposite parties jointly filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable before this commission and if there was any dispute arises between any one of the party as per the agreement of sale clause 11 the aggrieved party must approach the appropriate Civil Court as per the Specific Relief Act. The opposite parties denied that there was delay in their part to get DTCP approval from the Government. It was submitted that once the DTCP approval was obtained the schedule property would be registered in favour of the complainant and the same was informed to the complainant on several occasion. It was submitted that the same was informed to the police authorities and they closed the complaint. It was submitted that the complainant had cleared all the instalments in the month of August 2018. Thus submitted that they are always ready to register the schedule property in favour of the complainant once the DTCP approval was obtained. The opposite parties contended that there is no deficiency in service and sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on their side. The opposite parties did not appear on various dates and failed to file proof affidavit though they had filed Vakalath and written version and hence after providing sufficient opportunities the evidence on their side was closed on 17.08.2022.
Point for consideration:
Whether the consumer complaint is maintainable?
Whether the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not registering the plot in favour of the complainant even after receipt of the entire sale consideration has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1
On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his allegations;
Sale Agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties dated 29.08.2011 was marked as Ex.A1;
Full payment receipt issued by the opposite parties to the complainant dated 17.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;
Complaint made by the complainant to V5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai dated 03.11.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;
CSR issued by V5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai was marked as Ex.A4;
Legal notice issued by the complainant dated 16.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A5;
Acknowledgement card for the proof of service was marked as Ex.A6;
We heard the oral arguments of the complainant and perused the written argument filed by them. Though the opposite parties did not appear and file any proof affidavit with documents in support of their contention in the written version they have raised an issue with regard to maintainability of the complaint before this commission as the issue involved in the complaint is allotment of a vacancy plot. Hence this commission feel it is appropriate to decide the question of maintainability as the preliminary question.
The Apex Court in various decisions had held that though the allotment of plot simpliciter will not be covered under the Consumer Fora had held that when there is activity involving the development of a schedule land in to plots and also obtaining the necessary permission and approvals from the concerned authorities the said activities will be covered under definition of service.
The Delhi State Consumer Forum in a similar matter "IN THE MATTER OF VIKAS BHUTANI vs TDI INFRASTRUTURE LTD dt. 07.03.2022, held as follows;
"Perusal of the record shows that the Complainant entered into an agreement to avail the services of the Opposite Party for a consideration. However, the Opposite Party failed to honour the terms of the agreement, aggrieved by which, the Complainant has sought the refund of the amount paid by him. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to file the present complaint before this commission since the Complainant is aggrieved by the deficient services of the Opposite Party i.e. the failure of the Opposite Party to handover the possession within a reasonable time period and it is only due to this reason, that the refund of the amount paid is sought from the Opposite Party, which this Commission is authorized to adjudicated." the above case law squarely applies to the present case but in that case possession was sought for and in the present case registration was the issue.
Thus applying the Principle laid down in the above decision we could safely hold that the present complaint was maintainable for the reason that the opposite parties had purchased an extent of 37 cents of land in Survey No.115/5 in Old No.174, New No.121 in Palnellor Village, Sriperumbundur Union and Taluk, Kancheepuram District under a Sale Deed dated 09.05.2011 registered as document No.1114/2011 in SRO, Chunguvarchathram and all the opposite parties developed the said land and formed a layout as Sri Balaji Nagar and had offered Public to purchase the plot and that the complainant agreed to purchase a plot from the opposite parties in instalments basis and had paid the entire price of the plot i.e., 2,40,000/- in 86 monthly instalments of Rs.2500/- along with Rs.25,000/- as advance amount. Thus we answer the point in favour of the complainant holding complaint is maintainable.
Point No.2:
It was the case of the complainant that in spite of receipt of entire amount the opposite parties had failed to register the plot in favour the complainant and thus had committed deficiency in service. When the written version filed by the opposite parties was perused we could find that the opposite parties though had taken a defence that the present complaint was not maintainable before this commission they never disputed the allegation/contention with regard to development of layout, purchase of plot by the complainant, payment of the entire sale amount by the complainant and the non-registration of the plot. However it was submitted by the opposite parties that as they were waiting for the DTCP approval they could not register the plot in favour of the complainant. In these circumstances when the opposite parties offered sale of plots in a layout it is their bounden duty to get the necessary approvals and permission from the appropriate Government authorities. When they failed to do so it clearly amounted to deficiency in service on their part. In such circumstances we hold that the opposite parties in not obtaining the DTCP approval even after receiving the entire sale consideration towards the sale of plot and not registering the plot in favour of the complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Thus this commission holds that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and the same was successfully proved by the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite parties.
Point No.3:
With regard to relief to be granted to the complainant he has sought for refund of the amount and not in registration of the plot and hence in the facts and circumstances we direct the opposite parties to repay the amount paid by the complainant towards purchase of plot with 6% interest. Further for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant we award Rs.10,000/- as compensation and we also award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the 1st to 3rd opposite parties;
a) to refund Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakhs forty thousand only) with 6% interest from the date of complaint till realization;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardships caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
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 the 06th day of September 2022.
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 29.08.2011 Sale Agreement. Xerox
Ex.A2 17.08.2018 Full payment Receipt issued by the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A3 03.11.2018 Complaint made by the complainant to V5, Thirumangalam police Station, Chennai. Xerox
Ex.A4 17.11.2018 CSR Copy. Xerox
Ex.A5 16.04.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A6 .............. Acknowledgement card. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
Nil
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
