Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/473/2012

The General Manager,Indian Railway Welfare Organisation & another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shaw Navas Ahamed & 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

Ramasubramaniam

13 Oct 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                   Present: Thiru J. Jayaram,                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                 Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                           MEMBER

F.A. No. 473 / 2012

             (Against the Order in C.C. No. 41 / 2011,dated 21-10-2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

Dated this the 13^th day of OCTOBER, 2015

  1. The General Manager,                              ]

    Indian Railway Welfare Organisation,        ]

    EVR Salai,                                               ]

    Egmore, Chennai – 600 008                      ]  ..    1^st Appellant /

                                                                   ]         1^st Opposite Party 

2. The Project Officer,                                  ]

    Indian Railway Welfare Organisation,        ]         2^nd Appellant /

    Podanur, Coimbatore – 641 023                ]  ..    2^nd Opposite Party 

                   Vs.

1. Shaw Nawas Ahemed,                              ]

    C-2, Rail Nagar,                                       ]  ..    1^st Complainant /

    Podanur,                                        ]         1^st Respondent

    Coimbatore – 641 023                     ]

]

2. B. Kalyanasundaram                                 ]  ..    2^nd Complainant /

    C-4, Rail Nagar,                                       ]         2^nd Respondent

    Podanur,                                        ]

    Coimbatore – 641 023                     ]

]

3. P. Mani                                                    ]

    C-6, Rail Nagar,                                       ]  ..    3^rd Complainant /

    Podanur,                                        ]         3^rd Respondent

    Coimbatore – 641 023                     ]

        

            This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 19-08-2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for Appellants:    -        M/s Ramasubramaniam Associates

Counsel for Respondents: -       M/s M.B. Raghavan

J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

             This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Salem in C.C. No. 41 / 2011, dated 21-10-2011, allowing the complaint.

          The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties promoted a Housing Project, and the complainants purchased house Nos. C2, C4 and C6 respectively in the lot. The above 3 houses are situate adjacent to the park area for which the opposite parties collected extra cost of Rs.11,610/- for each of the 3 houses. The opposite parties did not keep up their assurance and the park area was not developed, cleaned and maintained by the opposite parties, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and hence the complaint.

2.       According to the opposite parties, the amount of Rs.11,610/- was collected from the complainants towards corner plots and because of the open space available having a road on one side and open leveled park area on another side and not for developing the park or maintaining it; and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to develop the park and keep it clean, as assured in Ex.B2 brochure and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each of the complainants towards compensation for mental agony caused due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and to pay costs of Rs.3,000/-.

4.       Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

5.       The contention of the opposite parties in their version would be that extra amount was collected from the complainants / respondents only towards provision of open, unallotted space on one side of the plot and also for the advantage of road on one side and open leveled park area on another side, and that the open park area was leveled and cleared before handing over the colony for maintenance and also that the open area adjacent to the plots of the complainants was provided as agreed but some features of the project could not be accommodated within the funds such as the provision of the special lawns with decorative flowers / bushes in the park and only normal leveling could be arranged. Therefore, admittedly the park area was not developed by the opposite parties as assured by them.  

6.       On perusal of Ex.A2 / Group Housing Scheme, it is clearly stated that the payment of additional amounts was towards park on side (Revised due to park on side) and in Ex.A3 & A4, it is again reiterated that the additional cost was paid towards houses situated on the park side.

7.       In Ex.A5, it is again stated that additional amount was collected from the complainants in view of the open area and also because the plots are situate near the park area.

8.       It is further pertinent to note that in Ex.A8 / Ex.B2, it is clearly stated under the caption No.4, Salient Features of the Housing Project that basic civic amenities like road,…parks and shopping centre are being provided in the housing scheme.

9.       Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the opposite parties are bound to develop the park as noted in the salient features in Ex. A8 / Ex.B2 and that they have only leveled the park area giving room for dumping wastage which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

10.     The District Forum has rightly held that the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established by the complainants and allowed the complaint and passed an order directing the opposite parties to develop the park and to keep it clean as assured in the brochure Ex. A8 / Ex.B2, and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each complainant towards compensation for mental agony caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and to pay costs of Rs.3,000/-.

11.     There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and the order does not warrant interference of this Commission. We agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum, and there is no merit in the appeal.

12.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

TMT.  P. BAKIYAVATHI                     J. JAYARAM          

           MEMBER                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER