Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/166/2018

Piyush Bhandhari S/o Pradeep Bhandari and 2 others - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sushen Constructions Pvt Ttd, Rep by its Managing Director, Mr.V. Venkatarajan, and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. B. Raviraja

28 Oct 2021

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                 BEFORE               Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH          PRESIDENT

                                                Tmt. Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI            MEMBER

 

CC.NO. 166/2018

 DATED THIS THE 28^th  DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

1.       Piyush Bhandari

S/o. Pradeep Bhandari

 

2.       Priyanka Bhandari

D/o. Pradeep Bhandari

 

3.       Sangeetha Bhandari

W/o. Pradeep Bhandari

 

All are residing at

No.7, Sriji Falace

No.17, EVK Sampath Road

Vepery, Chennai – 600 007                                            ....Complainants

 

                                                  Vs 

1.       Sushen Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

          Having its Registered office at

          No.2, ‘Sucons Sivagami Square’,

          No.147/1, G.N.Chetty Road

          T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017

          Rep. by its Managing Director V.Venkatarangan

 

2.       V.Venkatarangan

          Residing at: 2^nd Floor,

          SPL Apartments

          27, Bazullah Road, T.Nagar

          Chennai – 600 017

 

3.       Vummidi Sushen

          S/o. V.Venkatarangan

          Residing at Flat No.20, Sucons Padmalaya

          No.5 (Old No.3), Venkatanarayana Road

          T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017                                     ....Opposite parties

 

Counsel for complainant                               :   M/s. B. Ravi Raja, Advocates

Opposite parties 1 and 2                             :   Exparte

3^rd Opposite party                                      :  Given up

 

                This complaint coming before us for hearing finally on 12.8.2021.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties being remained exparte, and the 3^rd opposite party was given up by the complainant. Therefore on hearing the arguments of counsel appearing for complainant and upon perusing the material records this Commission made the following order:

ORDER

Justice R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT    

 

1.       This complaint has been filed under Sec.17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.98,77,040/- in toto towards cost escalation, Rental loss and compensation for mental agony. 

2.       The case of the complainants in brief is as follows:

          The 1 & 2 complainants are the son and daughter of Pradeep Bhandari, and the 3^rd complainant is the wife.  The 2^nd and 3^rd complainants are represented by Mr.Pradeep Bandari.  The complainants approached the opposite parties 1 to 3, who held out a promise and assurance that they are developing plots and putting up building and that if the complainants could invest any amounts they could have their own apartments/ villas/ plots.  The complainants believing the words of the opposite parties, had advanced by cheques and   cash to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties had suggested that he could also invest in Sri Sai Vari Nagar, Chengalpet District and had executed agreement for sale.  Later the complainant came to know that though the 1^st opposite party commenced construction activities, the completion appeared to be inordinately delayed.  When this was questioned by the 1^st complainant, the opposite parties agreed to give security cheque payments for the delay in construction, loss of rental income and escalation costs.  They had also mutually agreed to extend the time for completion of the construction.  Thereby the complainant was forced to file a Civil Suit before the High Court of Judicature in Chennai in C.S.No.818/2016 for recovery of money, which was allowed by attaching two items of the properties.  The said suit was filed with liberty being preserved to enable the complainant to initiate other proceedings.  Therefore, the present complaint is maintainable.  The civil suit is mainly on the basis for recovery of amounts based on the chques which were issued and dishonoured.  The civil suit before the High Court was filed based on the cheques value of Rs.1,16,50,000/-.   Moreover in the said application itself the complainants have filed an application Nos.5684/2015 and 5685/2016 under Order II Rule 2 of CPC for granting the liberty to the complainants leave to institute subsequent proceedings.  On account of subsequent developments the complainants are entitled to cost escalation of UDS and in the construction cost in the property being Plot No.8 of an extent of 2400 sq.ft., comprised in survey Nos.1401/1C party  (S.No.1401/1C2 part as per patta) and 17/1B part (S.No.17/1B part as per patta) in the layout approved by MLPA bearing approval No.194/2011, situate at No.46, Thaiyur ‘B’ Village, Chengleput Taluk.  In the said property four flats were booked wherein for three flats “Agreement for sale” was registered in the name of Sangeetha Bhandari.  The cost of UDS and construction also have escalated and therefore the complainants are liable to be paid as calculated in the complaint @ Rs.42,30,600/-.  In fact after filing the suit, the opposite parties visited the complainants for amicable settlement, though the complainants are not willing to withdraw the suit, till the proper understanding and payment could be assured.  The opposite parties had agreed to pay the escalation cost, and also gave certain post dated cheques as security for completion of the said undertaking given in the year 2017.  Despite such a specific undertaking, till date there was no completion of the buildings and therefore the complainants have filed this complaint claiming the escalation cost @ Rs.82,60,400/- and for Rental loss at Rs.1466640/- as detailed in paragraph 9 of the complaint, alongwith compensation of Rs.150000/- totally a sum of Rs.98,77,040/-. 

3.       Inspite of receipt of notice, the opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

4.       In support of their contentions, the complainants have filed their proof affidavit alongwith documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A24.  We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, perused the documents filed in support of the complaint and the proof affidavit and the written argument, and passed the order as follows:

5.       A perusal of the complaint would show that the complainants have purchased properties developed by the opposite parties by entering sale agreements as seen from Ex.A3 to A9.  Now the case of the complainant is that though the construction activities   commenced the same, had not been completed, and there seems to be an inordinate delay in completing the construction. 

          The complainants would submit that when this was questioned the opposite parties have given security cheque payments for the delay in construction, loss of rental income and escalation in costs.   But as submitted by the complainants, the cheques were dishonoured by the bank by stating that “Account closed”.  Therefore, for recovery of the money a Civil Suit was filed before the High Court, which is pending. 

          The complainants would further submit that after filing of the complaint, the opposite parties have come forward for negotiation for amicable settlement.  The opposite parties also have agreed to compensate the complainants towards the escalation of costs for the UDS and construction costs also, and gave some post dated cheques as security for completion of the said undertakings given in the year 2017.  Now the complainant had come forward with this complaint praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the escalation cost in the UDS and for mental agony. 

6.       On careful evaluation, we are of the opinion, that the complainants being purchasers,   cannot claim escalation costs in the UDS from the opposite parties/ promoters.      Therefore, the prayer for payment of escalation cost itself is not maintainable.  The complainants have stated in the complaint itself that the opposite parties have agreed to compensate the complainants towards the escalation costs for the UDS.  Which means, while handing over the possession, if there is any cost escalation, the opposite parties will consider in waiving the same.  Therefore, by misinterpreting the same, this complaint is being filed with bald allegations, only to pressure the opposite parties for making payments.  Moreover there is no pleadings as to what is the cost of construction, and how much amount was paid by the complainant.     For recovering the amount paid by way of cheque, already a Civil Suit has been filed before the High Court, which is pending. 

          Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that this complaint is being filed only to pressurize the opposite parties.   The claim made in the complaint would not attract the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, since no negligence is made out against the opposite parties so far as the deficiency in service.  Accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

 

 

 

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                  R SUBBIAH 

           MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

Exhibits filed on the side of complainant

A1      22.06.2011   Power of Attorney

A2             “           Joint Development Agreement

A3      07.11.2011    Agreement for sale and construction agreement

A4      05.12.2011              -do-

A5      25.05.2012              -do-

A6            “                      -do-

A7      26.03.2013              -do-

A8      26.03.2013              -do-

A9           “                       -do-

A10     15.09.2015    General Power of Attorney given to 2^nd complainant

A11     26.09.2016    Copy of Civil Suit

A12     27.04.2017    Order passed by High Court, Madras

A13     05.07.2017              -do-

A14     26.07.2017              -do-

A15     27.07.2018    Cheque issued to Prinyanka Bhandari

A16     27.07.2018    Cheque issued to Piyush Bhandari

A17     27.07.2018    Cheque issued to Sangeetha Bhandari

A18     27.07.2018              -do-

A19           “                      -do-

A20     01.08.2018    Return Memo from the Bank

A21           “                      -do-

A22           “                      -do-

A23           “                      -do-

A24           “                      -do-

 

 

 

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                               R SUBBIAH     

           MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT