BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 22/06/2010
Date of Order : 30/06/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 355/2010
Between
Sumia, | :: | Complainant |
W/o. Binoy Mohammed, Odaplackal House, Near Janatha Press, Changanassery, Kottayam, Rep. by her authorised representative, Nirmal, S/o. Jayaprakash, Nalini Nivas, Udaya Road, Thykoodam, Kochi – 19. |
| (By Adv. Manu Roy, Opp. Lourdes Church, Near Thevara Junction, Perumanoor, Cochin - 15) |
And
M/s. Star Homes, | :: | Opposite party |
Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthra, Kochi - 682 020, Rep. by its Managing Partner. |
| (By Adv. Lalgi.P. Thomas, Parathottu Chackalamannil, Puthiya Road, Chackalapadam, Kaloor, Kochi - 17) |
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
1. The complaint stems out of the following facts :
The complainant is a house wife living with her husband in Dubai. She has appointed the friend of husband to represent on her behalf in the Forum. The complainant made agreements for the purchase of undivided share in a housing project called “Star Meadows” and construction of an apartment thereof admeasuring 685 sq.ft. The prices respectively for the undivided share and apartment were Rs. 1,12,000/- and Rs. 14,53,000/-. As per the construction agreement, the opposite party was bound to complete the construction by June 2009. The complainant has paid Rs. 14,01,824/- and the balance was supposed to be paid at the time of handing over the apartment. The opposite party has not completed the work even after lapse of one year. The opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 2/- per sq.ft. per month if the construction is not completed within stipulated time. The complainant has even made a suggestion for refund of the consideration on taking back the apartment which was turned down by the opposite party. That is why, the complainant has been brought before us seeking various reliefs in the complaint.
2. The opposite party filed version denying the allegations :
It is claimed that the construction is almost completed. It is submitted that the complainant is yet to pay Rs. 3 lakhs on various counts apart from the original dues of Rs. 1,72,294/-. In the above circumstances, it is urged to dismiss the complaint.
3. Advocate P.R. Ajithkumar was appointed as an advocate commissioner and his report was marked as Ext. C1. No oral evidence to the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite party has no evidence. The counsel on both sides were heard.
4. The points that emerge for settlement :
whether the construction of the apartment is completed within the stipulated time?
Whether there is any outstanding liability against the complainant?
What are the reliefs ?
5. Point Nos. i. to iii. :- The complainant has nominated Mr. Nirmal as her authorised agent to represent her in the Forum by Ext. A3 authorisation letter. The complainant executed Ext. A1 agreement with the opposite party for the purchase of undivided share and construction of apartment therein while the construction was progressing, she was regularly making payments. The agreed total consideration for the apartment is Rs. 14,500/-. Ext. A2 statement of account would show that she was yet to pay an amount of Rs. 1,72,294/- towards balance.
6. The case of the dispute is that the construction work was not completed within the stipulated period. An advocate commission was appointed by the Forum to inspect and report on the fact of incompletion of the flat as well as the details thereof. The advocate commissioner submitted a detailed report which is marked as Ext. C1. The learned commissioner has reported that eventhough structural construction was over, there are many obligations that were yet to be fulfilled. It is significant to note that the opposite party has not filed any objection against the report, implicitly affirming the findings of the commissioner. In that view of the matter, we have no other go than accepting the report and arriving at the conclusion that the apartment remains incompleted. But we have also to underline the fact that the complainant herself has agreed that she has not completed payment on her side. The opposite party has also raised the additional claim of Rs. 3 lakhs towards charges for electric and water connection in addition to service tax. It is also pertinent to note that the opposite party has agreed in Ext. A1 agreement that they would be paying compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,270/- for each month of incompletion of the promised construction.
7. On an overall appreciation of pleadings and materials produced before us, we are of the view that there is merit in the complaint. The opposite party shall also pay costs of the proceedings in the Forum.
8. In that view of the matter, the complaint stands allowed as follows :
The opposite party shall complete the construction within a span of six months from the date of this order.
The opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,270/- for each month of incompletion from the month of July 2009 till completion.
The opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2011.
Forwarded/By order, Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh, President. Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the agreement dt. 02-06-2008 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of statement of accounts as on 31-03-2010 |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of authorization letter dt. 30-05-2010 |
“ C1 | :: | Commission report dt. 25-04-2011 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
