Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/275/2013

Chitra Sundram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suryavardhan Estate Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

G.Munendhran

27 Nov 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 22.08.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 27.11.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.275/2013

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

                                 

Mrs. Chitra Sundaram,

W/o. Mr. J. Sundaram,

Apartment No.104, Hampton Block,

Victoria Towers,

No.37, Rajiv Gandhi Road,

Kazhipattur – 603 103.                                                  .. Complainant.                                                      

 

     ..Versus..

 

The Director,

M/s. Suryavardhan Estates Private Limited,

No.827, 6^th Floor, Dhun Building,

Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

           

Counsel for complainant      :  M/s. G. Munendran

Counsel for opposite party  :  M/s. Badri Natarajan & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to give the audited accounts on the maintenance charges collected from the owners from the year 2010 until March 2013, to refrain from disconnection of essential services like DG Power Back up to complainant’s apartment, to convene the meeting of the owners of the Flat immediately to justify any increase in maintenance charges and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service  with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant is the joint owner along with her husband Mr. J. Sundaran in flat No.104.  The complainant and his family occupied the apartment since September 2012.  The opposite party looked after the maintenance initially, collected Rs.2.50 per sq. ft. from September 2012.  It will remain till the association is formed.   On the contrary, the opposite party suddenly increased the maintenance charges to Rs.3.50 per sq. ft. as per the circular dated: 23.01.2013 from January 2013 i.e within 4 months of the date of occupation.   Since the opposite party has not shown the audited accounts the complainant consistently paid the maintenance charges at the rate of Rs.2.50 sq. ft.  The opposite party used to threaten the complainant that he will disconnect the essential services like water supply, Sewage connection, DG Power back up etc.  The complainant submits that at the time of entering into construction agreement dated:15.07.2012, the maintenance charges would  be Rs.2.50 per sq. ft.  The opposite party collected this maintenance charges of Rs.29,790/- in advance as security at the rate of Rs.2.50/- per sq. Ft .  But to contrary, the opposite party issued circular dated:23.01.2013 within 4 months demanding increased payment of maintenance retrospectively from 01.01.2013.  Many flat owners including the complainant demanded the opposite party to convene flat owners meeting to discuss arbitrary increase of maintenance and demand for forming Owners Association Agreement. As per the circular dated:08.02.2012, there are opposition for increasing maintenance. 

2.     The complainant submits that some 25 people working in the Sholinganallur project were residing in the Victoria Tower Complex whose necessities of electricity, water, food and accommodation were met from the maintenance fund of the owners of Victoria Towers.  The opposite party issued a letter stating that there are 32 unsold apartments having the facility of maintenance also borne by the owners of the Victoria Towers.  The complainant submits that the opposite party has not furnished any clear audited account and not come forward to create Owners’ Association.   The complainant submits that on 28.06.2013, when the complainant’s parents, in laws were resting in the bed room, the Power supply was cut off.  The complainant was to switch on the DG Power Supply.  It was not working.  Nobody come forward to rectify the defect immediately.  While checking it with the Estate Manager over phone, it is reported that DG supply Power Back up of the complainant’s house was cut off for non-payment of increased maintenance amount.  The complainant has not paid the increased maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.3.50.  At the time of sanctioning the Construction Agreement, the rate of maintenance charge is Rs.5/- per sq. ft.  It was reduced to Rs.2.50/-.  Thereafter, it was increased to Rs.3.50/- with effect from 01.01.2013 after providing DG Power Supply to the owners of the apartments.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that as per the agreement dated:15.07.2012 the complainant filed the case before the consumer Forum is barred.  The  opposite party states that the allegation of threat by the opposite party related to get basic amenities like water supply, sewage connection, DG Power back up are imaginary.  The disconnection related to the DG power Back termed by the complainant is a basic amenity is not correct.  As per the agreement, there is nothing about the DG Power supply to the apartment owners it is only for the common area.  But such provision of privilege has been given to the apartment owners by way of utilising the maintenance amount.  At the inception the maintenance amount per sq. ft. was Rs.5/-.  It was reduced to Rs.2.50 sq. ft. till 31.12.2012 on 01.01.2013, it was increased to Rs.3.50/- after due circular dated:23.01.2013.  The complainant and some other few people refused the enhanced rate but various other costs have increased and therefore, the opposite party has no choice but to enhance the maintenance charges.   The opposite party states that the allegation of non-production of audited accounts is totally denied.  The opposite party produced to show that the complainant is having arrears on payment of her maintenance charges.  The opposite party states that steps have been taken for creation of association.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B13 are marked on the side of the opposite party. 

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the audited accounts for the maintenance charges collected from the owners from 2010 to March 2013 and convene a meeting of owners for the increase of maintenance charges as prayed for?

2. Whether the opposite party is refrained from disconnection of DG Power Back up in Apartment No.104 as prayed for?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The complainant filed his written arguments.  The opposite party has not filed any written arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   The complainant is the joint owner along with her husband Mr. J. Sundaran in flat No.104.  The complainant and his family occupied the apartment since September 2012.  Ex.A3 is the Construction Agreement.  The opposite party to look after the maintenance initially, collected Rs.2.50 per sq. ft. from September 2012.  It will remain till the association is formed.   On the contrary, the opposite party suddenly increased the maintenance charges to Rs.3.50 per sq. ft. as per the circular dated: 23.01.2013 as per Ex.A5 from January 2013 i.e within 4 months of the date of occupation.   Since the opposite party has not shown the audited accounts the complainant consistently paid the maintenance charges at the rate of Rs.2.50 sq.ft.  The opposite party used to threaten the complainant that he will disconnect the essential services like water supply, Sewage connection, DG Power back up etc.  But it is seen from the records, that all the apartments including complainant’s apartment is having TNEB connection.  The DG Power connection is a privilege to the individual apartments when there is no power supply and it is for the common area lift and pump sets alone. 

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that at the time of entering into construction agreement dated:15.07.2012, the maintenance charges would  be Rs.2.50 per sq. ft.  The opposite party collected this maintenance charges of Rs.29,790/- in advance as security at the rate of Rs.2.50/- per sq. Ft as per Ex.A3 Schedule B.  But to contrary, the opposite party issued circular dated:23.01.2013 as per Ex.A5 within 4 months demanding increased payment of maintenance retrospectively from 01.01.2013.  Many flat owners including the complainant demanded the opposite party to convene flat owners meeting  to discuss arbitrary increase of maintenance and demand for forming Owners Association as per Ex.A3, Agreement.  As per the circular dated:08.02.2012, Ex.A6, Ex.B9, Ex.B10 and Ex.B11, there are opposition for increasing maintenance.  Further the contention of the complainant is that some 25 people were working in the Sholinganallur project were residing in the Victoria Tower Complex whose necessities of electricity, water, food and accommodation were met from the maintenance fund of the owners of Victoria Towers.  But the complainant has not produced any record.  The opposite party issued Ex.B7, letter which is very clear that there are 32 unsold apartments having the facility of maintenance also borne by the owners of the Victoria Towers.  But in Ex.B8 it is very clear that “With reference to our Circular dated:23.01.2013, “we wish to bring to your notice that we would like to form the Flat Owners Association at the earliest as we are facing extreme difficulty to run the maintenance at the old rate with high escalation in all costs of material, labour and other miscellaneous charges” proves necessitates the increase of maintenance.   

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has not furnished any clear audited account and not come forward to create Owners’ Association.  As per Ex.B13, ledger copy of maintenance charges account is exorbitant.  Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint requesting the relief of production of audited account.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 28.06.2013, when the complainant’s parents, in laws were resting in the bed room, the Power supply was cut off.  The complainant was to switch on the DG Power Supply.  It was not working.  Nobody came forward to rectify the defect immediately.  While checking it with the Estate Manager over phone, it is reported that DG supply Power Back up of the complainant’s house was cut off for non-payment of increased maintenance amount.  Admittedly, the complainant has not paid the increased maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.3.50.  As per Ex.B3, at the time of entering the Construction Agreement, the rate of maintenance charge is Rs.5/- per sq. ft.  It was reduced to Rs.2.50/-.  Thereafter, it was increased to Rs.3.50/- with effect from 01.01.2013 after providing DG Power Supply to the owners of the apartments.  It is also seen from the records, that the maintenance amount of Rs.2.50/- per sq. ft. was collected from the very inception till 01.01.2013 for more than two years.  By that time, the Power package was given to the apartments.  There are escalation of prices for maintenance due increase in DG electricity charges and of wages of employees. The complainant is praying to produce the audited accounts on the maintenance charges etc and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs.

9.     The contention of the opposite party is that as per the agreement dated:15.07.2012, Ex.B1, the case before the Consumer Forum is barred.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of threat by the opposite party related to basic amenities like water supply, sewage connection, DG Power back up are imaginary.  It is not denied that all the apartment owners including the complainant is having electricity connection, water supply and sewage connection.  None of the above basic amenities were disconnected by the opposite party.  The disconnection related to the DG power Back termed by the complainant is a basic amenity is not correct.  As per the agreement, there is nothing about the DG Power supply to the apartment owners it is only for the common area.  But such provision of privilege has been given to the apartment owners by way of utilising the maintenance amount.  At the inception the maintenance amount per sq. ft. was Rs.5/-.   It was reduced to Rs.2.50 sq. ft. till 31.12.2012 or 01.01.2013, it was increased to Rs.3.50/- after due circular dated:23.01.2013 as per Ex.A5.  The complainant and some other few people refused the enhanced rate but various other costs of maintenance have increased and therefore, the opposite party has no other choice but to enhance the maintenance charges.  

10.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of non-production of audited accounts is totally denied.  The opposite party produced Ex.B13 to show that the complainant is having arrears of payment of the maintenance charges.  But the opposite party has not produced any audited account.  The reason for non production of audited accounts also not explained in this case.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that steps have been taken for creation of association.  The complainant also admitted Owners’ Association was formed in the year 2015.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall give the audited accounts to the complainant for the year 2012 & 2013 i.e. from the date of Agreement with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to give the Audited Accounts on the maintenance charges collected from the owners for the years 2012 & 2013 i.e. from the date of Agreement to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of November 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                            PRESIDENT  

 COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1		Copy of Brochure of the opposite party
Ex.A2		Draft copy of the Agreement of Construction
Ex.A3	15.07.2012	Copy of Unregistered Agreement of construction
Ex.A4	02.01.2012 to 01.08.2013	Copy of maintenance bills and receipts sent by the opposite party
Ex.A5	23.01.2013	Copy of circular unjustly demanding hike in maintenance charges
Ex.A6	08.02.2013	Copy of circular proposing formation of Association
Ex.A7	29.03.2013	Copy of letter sent by the opposite party
Ex.A8	28.06.2013	Copy of Police complainant against the opposite party’s representatives
Ex.A9	28.06.2013	Copies taken from the website of the opposite party
Ex.A10	20.07.2013	Copy of undertaking given in the Police Station by Owners of flats
Ex.A11	20.07.2013	Copy of undertaking given by the opposite party’s representatives

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1	15.07.2012	Copy of Construction Agreement
Ex.B2	23.06.2012	Copy of the letter of the opposite party
Ex.B3	23.01.2013	Copy of the letter of the opposite party
Ex.B4	24.07.2013	Copy of circular of the opposite party
Ex.B5	01.08.2013	Copy of circular of the opposite party
Ex.B6	29.03.2013	Copy of the letter of the opposite party
Ex.B7	12.06.2013	Copy of the letter of the opposite party
Ex.B8	08.02.2013	Copy of circular of the opposite party
Ex.B9	15.03.2013	Copy of circular of the opposite party
Ex.B10	27.03.2013	Copy of circular of the opposite party
Ex.B11	29.06.2013	Copy of circular of the opposite party
Ex.B12	07.08.2013	Copy of the letter of the opposite party
Ex.B13	15.10.2013	Copy of ledger copy of the complainant’s maintenance charge account as on 15.10.2013

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                            PRESIDENT