Date of Filling      :  03.08.2011.

                                                                                            Date of Disposal  :  26.05.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT.  S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                          …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.31/2011

(Dated this Thursday the 26^th day of May 2016)

Mr. S. Durai Raj,

S/o. Mr. P. Shanmugavelayudham,

No.63, 3^rd Cross Street,

Thillai Nagar,

Kolathur,

Chennai - 600 099.                                                                      … Complainant.

/ Versus /

1. The President,

    Tamil Nadu Govt. Staff Welfare Council,

    No.31, Old Police Station Compound,

    Varatharajapuram,

    Ambattur,

    Chennai - 600 053.

2. The Secretary,

    Tamil Nadu Govt. Staff Welfare Council,

    No.31, Old Police Station Compound,

    Varatharajapuram,

    Ambattur,

    Chennai - 600 053.                                                            … Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 28.04.2016 in the presence of M/s. A.R. Poovannan, Counsel for the complainant, Mr. J. Karthikeyan, Counsel for the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party was set Ex-parte for non appearance and non filing of Proof Affidavit and  having perused the documents, evidences and written arguments on the side of the complainant and the 1^st opposite party side, this Forum delivered the following,

                                                ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties for seeking relief to execute the sale deed for the property mentioned in the complaint and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties with cost.

The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-

The opposite party’s Council formed a layout at Adighathur Village, Thiruvallur District for the benefit of the staff of the Government to own individual plots.  The staffs of the Government were called upon to buy the said plots by the opposite party’s council.  The complainant approached the opposite party and expressed his desire and intention to book a plot.  The complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as advance which was duly paid and the same was acknowledged by the opposite party vide their receipt dated 08.05.1993.  The complainant was enrolled as member in the Council.

          2.       As per the direction of the opposite party he duly presented himself on the said date and the plot bearing No.70, was allotted to him.  Further, a priority number 3/1268 was issued to him.  The said plot was allotted to the complainant measuring an extent of 2400 sq. ft. and the sale price was fixed at Rs.10,800/-.  Apart from the initial payment of Rs.500/- as advance, the balance sale consideration was to be paid in equal monthly installments of Rs.250/- each.  It was assured by the opposite parties that on receipt of the full consideration, the sale deed for the plot would be executed.  The complainant subsequently paying the monthly installments and had fully paid the sale consideration.  Therefore, the opposite party was called upon to pay the charges for the stamp papers for engaging the sale deed, registration charges and other charges totally sum of Rs.21,700/-.  The said sum was duly paid by the complainant and the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties by their receipt dated 01.12.2009.  Though the opposite party has received the sale consideration and the charges for registration the opposite parties have not executed the sale deed in the name of the complainant.

3.       The complainant repeatedly  approached the opposite parties and requested them to furnish the draft sale deed and also to proceed with to complete the sale transaction.  But the opposite parties kept on assuring the complainant but did not take any concrete steps towards fulfilling their part of the contract.  The complainant finds no other alternative to cause a legal notice dated 10.05.2010 on the opposite parties calling upon them to executive the sale deed with respect to plot no.70.  In spite of receipt of notice, the opposite parties did not choose to comply with the demands made in the notice to complete the registration.    That due to the act of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered immense loss and hardship both mentally and physically.   Hence, this complaint.

4.       The contention of written version of the 1^st opposite party and adopted by the 2^nd opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

It is true that the opposite parties have acquired lands in Adigathur Village, Thiruvallur District for the benefit of the staff of the Govt. to own individual plots and after obtaining approval the lay out was named out Tholgappiar Nagar.  It is also true that the complainant who is interested to purchase a plot in the above said Tholgappiar Nagar applied himself and after considering his application he was allotted on priority basis under priority number 3/1268, Plot No.70 measuring an extent of 2400 sq ft and the sale price was fixed at Rs.10,800/- while allotting the plot the opposite party set forth certain conditions and payment schedules and the same was communicated to the complainant and he has also accepted the same.

5.       The complainant has not been regular in his payment and has defaulted and therefore, the opposite party as per the letter dated:29.03.1996, they have cancelled the allotment on 13.05.1996 and the same was intimated to the complainant vide letters and the complainant also received the same.  Once the allotment was cancelled to the knowledge of the complainant he has no right to claim the same.  But unfortunately, burking the cancellation the complainant has managed to pay the amounts on 06.08.1997 and 10.08.1998 and 31.12.2003 the following amounts Rs.5,050/-, Rs.300/-, Rs.3,200/- in addition to initial payment of Rs.5,450/- totally Rs.14,000/-.  The opposite party explains to him after receiving the notice dated 10.05.2010, the position that after the cancellation of the allotment in his favour, the Plot no.70 was handed over to Vivek Real Estate, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. 

6.       Therefore, after considering all these aspects, the complainant himself has accepted to receive the amount he has paid but unfortunately, he has filed this petition to harass and to coerce the opposite party to gain something more which he is not legally entitled to.  There is no question of suffering of mental torture and mental agony and hardship to the complainant and whereas the opposite party which is a welfare body catering the needs of Tamil Nadu Govt. Staffs and he is made to defend this petition and they alone is put to mental torture by the propagation of the complainant that he alone was cheated and the reputation of the welfare body is alone being lowered.  Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

7.       In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked.  While so, on the side of the 1^st opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked on their side.

8.       At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

9.       Written arguments had been filed on complainant and the 1^st opposite party side and oral arguments adduced.

10.     Point no.1:-

According the case of the complainant is that though the complainant had paid the full sale consideration as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and even the complainant repeatedly approached the opposite parties and requested to execute the sale deed of the respective plot no.70, in his favour, the opposite parties have not chosen to comply the same which leads to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  On the other hand, it is contended by the opposite parties that the complainant is not regular in payment and hence the allotment was cancelled through proper notice  as per the condition of the allotment letter and the same was received by the complainant by knowing full well that the allotment was cancelled and thereafter some or other way the complainant has managed to pay the amounts and therefore, there is no deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint.

11.     At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it goes without saying that the duty cast upon the complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint through proper evidences.  At the outset, it is learnt from the proof affidavit of the complainant that he was allotted the plot no.70 with an extent of 2400 sq. ft. at Tholkapiar Nagar at Adighathur Village through Ex.A1 and the pass book for payment of instalments which is marked as Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 is the receipt issued by the opposite parties for final payment of Registration fee.  The Encumbrance Certificate is Ex.A4.  It is further learnt that inspite of the complainant had paid the full sale consideration as per Ex.A1, allotment letter and repeatedly approached the opposite parties, they have not chosen to comply the demand of the complainant and therefore, the complainant was compelled to send the Ex.A5, legal notice to the opposite parties and the same was received by them on due acknowledgement.

12.     Whileso, on the side of the opposite parties, it is stated in the proof affidavit that it is true that the complainant was allotted the plot no.70 but he is not regular in payment of instalments and infact he has paid the instalment amount till the year 1994 only and thereafter be became defaulter.  It is further deposed that the opposite party has sent a letter dated 09.03.1996 (Ex.B1) and another letter dated 13.05.1996 (Ex.B3) on intimating that the allotment order was cancelled and even on receipt of the same, suppressing all the material facts the complainant managed to pay the balance amount and played fraud upon the opposite party and thereby, the complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands and there is no deficiency of service.

13.     At this point of time, on going through the materials placed before this Forum, on either side it is an admitted fact that the allotment order i.e. Ex.A1 has been issued to the complainant by the opposite parties and the payment of instalments in 1994 by the complainant towards the sale consideration as per Ex.A1.  Similarly, it is learnt that Ex. B1 & Ex.B3 were issued by the opposite parties to the complainant regarding the cancellation of the allotment order (Ex.A1) and the same was duly acknowledged.  But the complainant contended that the above said cancellation notices have not been received by him and denied the service of the notice.  Regarding this contention on careful perusal of the acknowledgement cards Ex.B3 & Ex.B4 series the person to whom addressed is the complainant and the address given in those acknowledgement cards are not denied by the complainant.  But the complainant simply denied that he has not received the Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 letters sent by the opposite parties.  At the outset, on seeing the acknowledgement cards Ex.B3 & Ex.B4 series through naked eyes, in Ex.B3 that one person who was available on that particular date and time, has signed and received on behalf of the complainant herein for the receipt of the Ex.B1.   Similarly, for the receipt of Ex.B2, one B. Maliga signed in Ex.B4 and she is supposed to be the wife of the complainant and the said fact also particularly not denied by the complainant. 

14.     At this instance, it is pertinent to see that there is no need for the postal authorities to serve the registered post to the unauthorized person and hence, the Forum has come to the conclusion that the postal authorities handed over Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 letters to the proper person in the address given and delivered as contemplated.  Therefore, there is no valid reason to reject the  service of the Ex.B3 & Ex.B4 series.  Furthermore, on careful seeing Ex.B1, it is clearly stated that the complainant has not paid the instalments properly and instructed the complainant to pay the entire amount on or before 06.04.1996 failing which, the allotment will be cancelled and the said will be left to another member.  Similarly in Ex.B2, it is categorically stated that because for non payment of due amount as per Ex.B1, the allotment of the complainant has been cancelled from 11.05.1996.  At this point of time, it is learnt from Ex.A2, that it has been issued only after issue of Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 only.  That too after the lapse of 10 months from Ex.B2 the complainant has paid Rs.5,050/- on 06.08.1997, Rs.300/- on 10.08.1998 and Rs.3,200/- on 31.12.2003 respectively.   From the above payment, it is crystal clear that the complainant has not paid the balance amount in full at a time.  Moreover, the gap between the above said 3 payments also in a long time.  In such circumstances, though the opposite party had admitted the subsequent payment but the same has been paid by some or other way managed by committing some fraud. 

15.     In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the complainant failed to pay the instalments in time as per the condition incorporated in Ex.A1 and thereby, the complainant violate and not abiding the same in paying the instalments of dues.  Infact the complainant has paid the balance amount only after the receipt of the Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 which clearly reveals the real intention of the complaint.  Furthermore, a defaulter cannot be entitled for any relief.

16.     From the foregoing among other facts, it is crystal clear that the payment of the instalments made only after the subsequent letters, Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 that too after a long delay.   On receipt of the same by the complainant only in some or other way managed with the fraudulent act he has made the instalment due.  In order to arrive the real truth about the mode of subsequent payment of dues, it needs elaborate enquiry.  Moreover, the prayer of the complainant is to execute the sale deed, in order to fulfill the specific performance of contract and to handover the possession of the concerned plot which already sold out to some other person by the opposite parties.   It is beyond the scope of this Forum.  Furthermore, on considering the evidences and documents put forth on either side there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the same has not at all proved by the complainant.  Thus, point no.1 is answered accordingly.

17.     Point no.2:-

As per the decision arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.  Thus point no.2 is answered accordingly.

18.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 26^th   May 2016.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT