Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/240/2013

P.Sumathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

G.Munendran

14 Dec 2021

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Complaint Filed: 26.07.2013

                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Reservation: 19.11.2021

                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Order: 14.12.2021

                                                                                                       

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 

Present:

 

                  Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.                                  : President

                 Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                                           : Member

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.240/2013

 

TUESDAY, THE 14^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                                

 P.Sumathy, W/o.Mr.G.Munendran,

Flat No.502, West Minster Block,

Victoria Tower,

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 parties.

******

Counsel for the complainant                            : Mr.G.Munendran, Advocate,

Counsel for the opposite party                        : Mr.Badri Natarajan, Advocate.

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the arguments of both sides we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.

 

            The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for seeking direction to hand over the statutory receipts issued by the authorities in respect of infrastructure fee of Rs.1,45,600 service tax paid receipt for Rs.2,31,485/- and EB procurement charges for a sum of Rs.50,000/- or to refund a sum of Rs.4,27,085/- collected towards such alleged statutory charges along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of complainant’s payment until the date of realization and to produce the statement of account on the maintenance charges collected from the owner from the year 2010 until June 2013 and to refrain from disconnection of essential service like DG power Back up to complainant’s apartment and to convene the meeting of the owner of the flat immediately to justify and increase in maintenance charge and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the hardship and mantel agony caused to the complainant on account of unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service.

2. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A40 were marked, written argument filed and also oral argument adduced.   While so, on the side of the opposite party proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, documents Ex.B1 Ex.B24 were filed, written argument not filed and adduced oral argument on his sides.

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

The complainant has booked two flats on behalf of her two sons on 30.12.2006 measuring an extent of 1380sq.ft., in a proposed West Minster Block at Victoria Towers Project situated at No.37, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kazhipattur with the opposite party who promoted the said project initially. The opposite party has collected as infrastructure fee of Rs.100/- per sq.ft., a sum of Rs.1,45,600/-, Service Tax Rs.2,31,485/- and EB procurement charges Rs.50,000/-. The complainant has taken her possession of the house in the end of February 2012. Till the date of filing this complaint the opposite party has not provided the statutory documents from the authorities for the above sum of Rs.4,27,085/- to the complainant.  The complainant strongly demanded the above receipts issued by the authorities from the opposite party.

4. The complainant states that though the opposite party at various point of times has been claiming that the construction of all blocks have been completed, two blocks in the said project namely Buckingham Block and Hampton Block were seen only with partial completion and more than 60 construction labourers were residing in the complex and doing the construction work.  Even today, the project is yet to be completed and still over 30 flats remain yet to be sold by the opposite party.  Due to the construction activity in the adjacent blocks, this complainant and her family have been put to immense hardship and enormous amount of mental agony for the last 17 months.

5. The opposite party increased the maintenance charges a sum of Rs.4.00per square feet from Rs.2.50 per square feet without any proper justification and faced with stiff resistance from the resident owners  the opposite party withdrew the unjustified increase amount and again resorted to demand an increase in maintenance charges from Rs.2,50 per square feet  to Rs.3.50 per square feet in the month of January 2013 and for which  the complainant and other owners are prepared to pay the increased maintenance charges account if the opposite party provides account since the year 2010 to March 2013 to understand the genuineness of the claim made by the opposite party.

6. On 12.06.2013 the opposite party sent a letter, which appears to have a forged signature, threatened this complainant with disconnection of essential service, if their demand for increased maintenance charges is not met with. On 28.06.2013 the main power went off and as usual the complainant went to switch on the DG power supply which is provided in his apartment and has been using it daily every since occupying this apartment, found it not working. On verification of estate manager, who said over phone that he had to cut the DG power supply to the complainant’s house of non-payment of increased amount of maintenance charges under instructions from his superiors i.e. Mr.Mohamed Rafiq and Mr.Vijay Pawani. It is therefore very important and grossly necessary to restrain the opposite party to refrain from resorting to unlawful disconnection of essential service like DG power supply, water supply etc.   The attempt made by the opposite party to disconnect the DG power supply and their continued threat of holding the residents to ransom clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

7. Written version of the opposite party in brief:-

The opposite party stated that the breakdown of the Rs.4,27,085/- collected by the opposite party is a matter of record and does not require a response.  The above sum relates to infrastructure fee, service tax etc., the sum collected were as the complainant is bound to pay the construction agreement and the obligation to pay is not subject to or dependent upon the complainant to make payment conditional upon production of such statutory receipts.  The opposite party submits that 50% of the infrastructure payment was paid as a pre-condition of the approvals received and the rest was paid within the period it was due. 

8. In is a matter of record that some parts of the project are yet to be completed and this point does not require a response however it is denied that the complainant has been put to any hardship or mental agony by construction in other tower blocks. On the contrary, the increase in maintenance charges was completely justified and unavoidable due to rising costs faced by the opposite party in maintaining the building complex and the same was explained to the resident owners by the opposite party letter of 23.06.2012 and the increase in maintenance charges was suspended due to requests from some flats owner.  Subsequently an increase became inevitable due to extensive TNEB power cuts (requiring the DG power generator to run for longer periods) increase in power tariff and the increase in the cost of potable water, as well as other costs. Accordingly the maintenance rate was increased to Rs.3.50 per square feet by the opposite party’s letter dated 23.01.2013. The vast majority of owners accepted the increase and are now paying the enhanced rate but the complainant has refused to pay the increased rate.

9.  In respect of these residents, the opposite party has for the moment, not insisted on payment of the enhanced rate, following event at Kelambakkam Police Station.  The complainant and other residents have already agreed to a much higher rate of 5/- per square feet maintenance charges under the construction agreement. Further the complainant’s demand that the opposite party must produce the maintenance charges account from 2010 to 2013 as a precondition to paying increased rate is untenable and merely ruse to avoid paying enhanced maintenance charges, especially since the vast majority of residents have not requested production of any accounts before paying the increased rate of Rs.3.50 per square feet.  The opposite party’s letter dated 07.08.2013 already includes the statement of accounts for the years 2011-2013 and justifies the maintenance charges levied as well as rendering the complainant’s requested relief.

10. In is a matter of record that the DG power supply to the complainant’s flat was disconnected on 28.06.2013 as a consequence of non-payment of maintenance charges. It is denied that the DG power supply has been used every day by the complainant as it is only a backup to the main TNEB supply.  A few residents objected to this and the Estate Manager explained to them that DG power supply would be reactivated once maintenance charges were paid and that the primary TNEB power supply would continue to work.  It is denied that the disconnection of the DG power supply was illegal or unlawful.

11. It is a matter of record a few residents including the complainant decided to lodge a complaint at the local police station and following this, due to police pressure and to maintain goodwill with the residents while the dispute was resolved, the opposite party reluctantly agreed to restore DG power and continue charging the lower level of maintenance charges to the residents. Under the construction agreement the opposite party is only required to provide the DG power backup to the common area, lift and pumps.  Any additional usage of the DG power granted by the opposite party is at its sole discretion and can be disconnected at any time, especially for non-payment or part-payment of maintenance charges.  This is particularly true in the case of the complainant who continues to be in default in terms of making maintenance payments despite numerous reminders and the reliefs sought for by the complainant are unjustifiable and unsustainable and hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.

11.The points for consideration are:-

            1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

3) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

12. Point No.1:-

On perusal of records it is found that the complainant has booked a flat on 30.12.2006 measuring an extent of 1380sqare feet at Victoria Towers Project situated at No.37, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kazhipattur with the opposite party.  On perusal of sale agreement of undivided share of land dated 16.12.2011 it would reveals that not only the complainant but also Mr.G.M.Sabrish also entered into this agreement with the opposite party but this complaint was filed individually not on behalf of his son Sabrish and also found that the complainant and her son both of entered in to the agreement with the opposite party herein. In schedule –B of the construction agreement the total cost of the flat including undivided share of land cost Rs.51,95,965/-and the above amounts include service tax of Rs.2,31,485/-, infrastructure fee of Rs.1,45,600/- and Electricity Procurement Charges of Rs.50,000/- and these are charges are now made in dispute in this regard. The complainant has stated that the opposite party has not provided statutory receipts for the above payment made by the opposite party to the concern authorities.

13. The opposite party submitted that the amount paid by the complainant towards infrastructure fee, EB procurement charges and services tax have been duly paid forward to the appropriate authority and in pursuance of the same the construction plan of the opposite party was approved and the completed apartment has been handed over to the complainant along with electricity supply, if the opposite party has not paid the authorities, the authorities would not have allowed the constriction to continue. Further the opposite party has submitted additional documents that are copies of service tax receipt challan Sr No.00423 dated 03.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.5,,98,991/- and copy of service tax receipt Challan Sr.No.01183 dated 05.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.11,08,863/- and also submitted copy of DD dated 25.08.2008 drawn vide Bank of India for a sum of Rs.1,56,47,500.00/- to the Commissioner, Town & Country Planning and therefore the opposite party has paid total a sum of Rs.3,12,95,000/- to the Commissioner, Town & Country Planning. Further the opposite party has not furnished any documents to show that they have paid amount for EB charges for that the opposite party submitted if the opposite party has not paid the authorities, the authorities would not have allowed the constriction to continue. Therefore the opposite parties have submitted the receipts in respect of infrastructure fee and service tax before this commission and the same was marked as Ex.B22 to B24.

14. After filing this complaint, the complainant filed additional proof affidavit and stating that the opposite party has collected more money, the above amount actually is to be paid to the concern authority.  Furthermore on perusal of construction agreement the complainant has admitted to pay the above amount even on 16.12.2011 itself. Now he cannot go beyond his own admission.

15. Another one contention is that the opposite party has forced to disconnection of essential service to the complainant’s apartment and also increased the maintenance charges and the above said problem was handled the association of the owners and therefore the above prayer will not argue at this juncture. Considering all those facts we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

16. Point Nos.2&3:-

We discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in this complaint.  Accordingly point Nos.2&3 are answered.  

In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

Dictated to steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open commission, on this the 14^th day of December 2021.

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	30.12.2006	Opposite party’s Flats Booking Form.	Xerox
Ex.A2	02.01.2207	Receipt of booking advance of Rs.7,45,000/-	Xerox
Ex.A3	06.12.2008	Brochure of opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A4	12.10.2009	Letter of opposite party along with draft copies of agreement of sale, agreement of construction and sale deed.	Xerox
Ex.A5	29.11.2001	Revised Built-up Area Cost working sheet by opposite party	Xerox
Ex.A6	29.11.2011	Final details of payments confirmation by opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A7	16.12.2011	Agreement of sale of UDS land.	Xerox
Ex.A8	16.12.2011	Agreement of construction.	Xerox
Ex.A9	20.01.2012	e-mail to opposite party on the slow progress of work.	Xerox
Ex.A10	31.01.2012	Email to opposite party on certain defects.	Xerox
Ex.A11	01.03.2012	Authorisation letter of complainant.	Xerox
Ex.A12	17.03.2012	Email to opposite party on glaring defects.	Xerox
Ex.A13	22.05.2012	Email from opposite party seeking dues of maintenance charges.	Xerox
Ex.A14	24.05.2012	Reply e mail to the opposite party	Xerox
Ex.A15	24.05.2012	Circular of opposite party	Xerox
Ex.A16	21.06.2012	e-mail of complainant to opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A17	23.06.2012	Circular of opposite party	Xerox
Ex.A18	07.07.2012	E-mail to opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A19	24.10.2012	e-mail to opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A20	26.10.2012	Reply e-mail of opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A21	02.01.2013	Maintenance bill sent by opposite party	Xerox
Ex.A22	23.01.2013	Circular unjustly demanding hike in maintenance charges.	Xerox
Ex.A23	08.02.2013	Circular proposing formation of Association.	Xerox
Ex.A24	13.03.2013	e-mail sent to opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A25	21.04.2013	e-mail sent to opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A26	22.04.2013	Reply e-mail of the opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A27	01.05.2013	e-mail sent to opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A28	12.06.2013	Letter from opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A29	28.06.2013	Police complaint against opposite party representatives.	Xerox
Ex.A30	28.06.2013	Copies taken from the web site of opposite party.	Xerox
Ex.A31	20.07.2013	Undertaking given in the police station by owners of flats.	Xerox
Ex.A32	20.07.2013	Undertaking given by the opposite parties representatives.	Xerox
Ex.A33	……………	Agreement of construction.	Xerox
Ex.A34	……………	ICICI Bank housing loan account details.	Xerox
Ex.A35	15.07.2012	3BHK payment terms agreement of MRs.Chitra Sundaram with Respondent.	Xerox
Ex.A36	01.06.2007	G.O.No.191, on infrastructure and Amenities (I&A) charges.	Xerox
Ex.A37	04.01.2008	G.O.No.4 on I&A charges.	Xerox
Ex.A38	25.01.2008	G.O.No.22 on I&A charges	Xerox
Ex.A39	09.09.2009	G.O.No.161on I&A charges	Xerox
Ex.A40	25.01.2009	G.O.No.215 on I&A charges	Xerox

 

List of document filed by the opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1	16.12.2011	A copy of the construction agreement.	Xerox
Ex.B2	14.06.2007	A copy of the letter from op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B3	06.11.2007	A copy of the letter from op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B4	29.11.2011	A copy of the letter from complainant to the op.	Xerox
Ex.B5	12.11.2007	A copy of the letter from op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B6	17.12.2008	A copy of the letter from op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B7	06.12.2008	A copy of the letter from op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B8	27.01.2009	A copy of the letter from op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B9	25.08.2008	Infrastructure payment receipts.	Xerox
Ex.B10	23.06.2012	A copy of the letter from op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B11	23.01.2013	A copy of the letter from op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B12	26.10.2012	A copy of the letter from op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B13	07.08.2013	A copy of the letter from op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B14	12.06.2013	A copy of the letter from op to the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.B15	15.03.2013	A copy of the opposite party circular.	Xerox
Ex.B16	27.03.2013	A copy of the opposite party circular.	Xerox
Ex.B17	24.07.2013	A copy of the opposite party circular.	Xerox
Ex.B18	01.08.2013	A copy of the opposite party circular.	Xerox
Ex.B19	24.11.2012	A copy of the opposite party circular.	Xerox
Ex.B20	03.12.2011	Copy of service Tax receipt Challan Sr.No.00423 dated 03.12.2011	Xerox
Ex.B21	05.01.2012	Copy of Service Tax Receipt Challan Sr. No.01183, dated 05.01.12.	Xerox
Ex.B22	25.08.2008	Copy of DD dated 25.08.2008 drawn vide Bank of India.	Xerox
Ex.B23	15.04.2010	Letter No.506/2010 dated 15.04.2010 issued by K.R.Pandeshwari, A.M.I.E. Secretary, Mamallapuram Town Planning Commission.	Xerox
Ex.B24	28.11.2011	Letter No.483/2010 dated 28.11.2011 from the Member Secretary, Mamallapuram Town Planning Commission to op.	Xerox

 

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT