Kerala

Idukki

CC/111/2019

Benny Jecobe - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunitha Jose - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K M Sanu

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :12/06/2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of November 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 111/2019

Between

Complainant : Benny Jacob,

Aranjaniyil House,

Neyyassery P.O., Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . Sunitha Jose @ Sunitha Aji,

Partner, Ajees Group, 32/204, Unnichira,

Edappally, Kochi – 682 024.

2 . Sunitha Jose @ Sunitha Aji,

Apartment No.302, Kanjunjunga Apartment,

Palarivattom, Kochi- 682 024.

3 . Aji E., Kochuparambil,

(Managing Partner Ajees Group),

Apartment No.302, Kanjanjunga Apartment,

Palarivattom, Kochi- 682 025.

4 . Aji -E., Kochuparambil,

Kochuparambil House,

Vazhithala P.O., Thodupuzha.

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant is working abroad. Opposite parties are conducting the business of constructing and selling villas and flats in Olamattam, Thodupuzha. Opposite parties constructed a flat in the name and style of 'Valley View' and on seeing the advertisement of their flat complainant approached them and agreed to buy for Rs.25 Lakhs a flat is having 1440 square feet in the 9^th floor of the building numbered as 9A. At the time of paying the purchase price opposite

(Cont....2)

-2-

parties agreed that they will hand over the flat within December 2007. From the month of December 2007 complainant approached the opposite parties for handing over the agreed flat after finishing all the works. But opposite parties delayed the matter on some baseless reasons. At last after a long gap of nearly 9 years opposite parties handed over the flat to the complainant after registering it in the name of the complainant.

 

At the time of taking possession of the building complainant noticed that almost all the interior works are not completed. More over at the time of registration of the building opposite parties demanded Rs.2,80,000/- more from the complainant. When the complainant questioned about their demand, the opposite parties objected to create the documents in the favour of the complainant. At last the complainant forced to pay the amount, only on the reason for getting the building in his name.

 

On 26/10/18, opposite parties handed over the key to the complainant, when the opposite parties failed to finish the work of the flat as agreed, complainant is happened to spend Rs.1.5 Lakhs for kitchen works. More over till date the opposite parties failed to effect mutation of the property in the name of the complainant.

 

Complainant further averred that, even though the opposite parties registered the building in his name he is having no marketable title upon the building, since the property is not mutated in his name. This caused much mental agony and hardships to the complainant. This act of the opposite parties amounts to gross deficiency in service and realizing excess amount from the complainant addition to the agreed amount as clear instances of unfair trade practice.

 

Hence the complainant filed this petition alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties and prayed for allowing the reliefs such as to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10 Lakhs as compensation for the delay caused in handing over the building along with Rs.1.5 Lakh which is spend by the complainant for finishing the kitchen work. Further direct the

 

(Cont....3)

-3-

 

opposite parties to pay Rs.2,80,000/- which is realized by them from the complainant additionally along with litigation cost.

 

The notice served to the opposite parties from this Forum are returned unserved. On perusing the returned notice Forum found that the opposite parties are intentionally evade from the acceptance of the notice and hence opposite parties are set exparte.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents the copy of agreement for sale cum construction dated 30/03/07. Copy of sale deed dated 25/10/18. Receipt from apartment builder dated 01/09/19 are marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 respectively.

 

Heard on the part of the complainant.

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- On perusing the averments in the complaint and the document adduced by the complainant, it is seen that the opposite parties is handed over the building nearly after 11 years and also it is not in a finished nature. The allegation leveled against the opposite parties relating the realization of addition amount etc are not challenged by them. Opposite parties miserably failed to appear before this Forum and to resist the allegation in the complaint.

 

Under the circumstances Forum is of a considered view that, since the averment of the complainant are un challenged there is no need to go deep to the merits of the complainant.

 

Hence complaint allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1.5 Lakhs which the complainant spent for finishing the kitchen works along with Rs.2,80,000/- the additional amount which realized from the complainant in addition to the agreed amount, failing which the opposite parties amounts stated

(Cont....4)

-4-

above are in both heads will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default till its realization. No order to compensation or cost.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 -The copy of agreement for sale cum construction dated 30/03/2007

Ext.P2 -Copy of sale deed dated 25/10/2018

Ext.P3 -Receipt from apartment builder dated 01/09/2019

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT