KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

C.C. No. 124/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 21.11.2024

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

Sunny Joseph, S/o Joseph, Medathum Muriyil House, Kulathoor P.O., Kulathoor, Pathanamthitta-689 588.

                             (By Adv. Saigi Jacob Palatty and Adv. Anu S. Nair)

                                                Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. Kerala Trade Centre, represented by its Chairman, K.N. Marzook, S/o late Kazim, Rathnapuri, ERG Road, Tatapuram P.O., Ernakulam-682 018.

2. Sreenivas R., Manager, Kerala Trade Centre, Ashok Villa, Kalloor-Katrikadavu Road, Kochi-17.

3. Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry, represented by its Chairman, Mathew Kuruvuthadam Shanmugham Road, Kochi-682 031.

(By Adv. S. Reghukumar and Adv. George Cherian)

4. M/s Cherupushpam Films Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, M.K. Joseph, Cherupushpam Building, Marine Drive, Kochi-31.

                         (By Adv. C.S. Ajith Prakash and Adv. B.A. Krishna Kumar)

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is a complaint filed under Sec. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.  The averments contained in the complaint are as follows:-

The 3^rd opposite party, “Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry” is a company incorporated under the Companies Act.  The 1^st opposite party, Kerala Trade Centre is the subcommittee constituted as per the resolution of the general body meeting of the 3^rd opposite party held on 18.12.2004.  The 2^nd opposite party is the Manager of the 1^st opposite party and responsible in the day-to-day affairs and management and control of the 1^st opposite party along with its Chairman.  The 4^th opposite party is the land owner who has authorized the builder to obtain permit, advertise and make publication and to put up the building on the land. 

3.  In 2009, the chairman of the Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI for short) persuaded the complainant that the KCCI has proposed to construct a building and they would convince the complainant to purchase an apartment on the 13^th floor of the complex.  The 2^nd opposite party made the complainant believe that the building has got building permit approved by the Corporation of Cochin/GCDA including permit for the 13^th floor.  The opposite parties had also assured that the construction of the building would be completed in time as they received all statutory approval.  Believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant had agreed to purchase a flat on the 13^th floor of the Kerala Trade Centre. 

4.  On 28.11.2009 a tripartite agreement was executed for the purchase of apartment No. 13E on the 13^th floor of the Kerala Trade Centre complex with a super built up area of 630 sq. ft. and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) was paid as advance.  On 06.01.2010, the complainant had paid Rs. 39,10,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Ten Thousand only) by way of RTGS.  The opposite parties had agreed to complete the construction, assign and hand over the complainant an apartment for a total consideration of Rs. 44,10,000/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Ten Thousand only) in December 2010.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 made the complainant believe that they had obtained building permit from the Corporation to construct the structure including the 13^th floor.  It was only on the basis of the representation that they had obtained necessary building permit and other approvals and the same would be completed before December 2010, the complainant had entered into the agreement.  Thereafter considerable delay occurred in making the construction.  Ultimately, the opposite parties informed the complainant that the construction work has been completed and it was ready for occupation and permitted the complainant to do the interior work and the registration of the apartment will be done shortly.  The complainant had entrusted one Mr. Joy for completing the interior work so that he could occupy the building immediately after registration.  The complainant had spent an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) for the interior work.  While so, the 2^nd opposite party had sent a draft sale deed along with additional bill of Rs.7,66,050/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Sixty Six Thousand and Fifty only) as the requisite fee for the registration of the apartment.  After negotiations with the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant had paid Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh only) on 18.03.2015 and agreed to pay the balance amount.  The opposite parties had encashed the cheque on 20.03.2015.  They had also directed the complainant to purchase stamp paper for executing the sale deed.  Believing the assurance and promise, the complainant purchased stamp paper worth Rs. 3,26,830/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty only).  Though the entire amount was paid, the opposite parties had declined to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant as they had never obtained permission from the Corporation to build up a structure on the 13^th floor.  It is further understood that the Corporation had issued a notice dated 29.12.2014 that the construction made on the 13^th floor was not permitted and hence the same has to be demolished within 15 days of notice.  There is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint. 

5.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 had entered appearance and filed a joint written version with the following contentions:-

 They would admit that the 3^rd opposite party was established in 1951 with a view to promote trade and industry in the State of Kerala. According to them, the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties 1 to 3 on the reason that the complainant had booked the apartment for commercial purpose to gain profit.  The complainant and his family members are already having five apartments in Kochi City.  In addition to that the complainant is having own house and estate in Kulathoor.  The complainant is also having a resort at Thekkady.  The apartment No. 13 E is facing the sea which was booked for accommodating the NRI guests of the complainant.  The complainant is only an investor and not a consumer who proposed to purchase the apartment.  The agreement executed between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party stipulates that in case of any dispute it shall be decided by a sole arbitrator to be nominated by the builder in accordance with the rules of Arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.  The allegation of cheating attributed in the complaint is denied.  The complainant with the same allegation had already approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.  The 2^nd opposite party is only an employee of the 3^rd opposite party who is in no way personally liable.  There was no persuasion on the part of Sri. K.N. Marzook for the purchase of the 13^th floor of the apartment complex.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 were acting in good faith.  The 1^st opposite party was having the permit for basement, ground floor plus 12 floors and deemed permit for 13^th floor in view of Rule 15, 126 and 141(8) of the Municipality Building Rules, 1999.  The construction of the structure was completed as promised.  The grant of permit was out of the hands of the opposite parties.  The 4^th opposite party was granted building permit by the Corporation of Kochi for the construction of multi storied building.  The permit was issued on 11.10.2004.  The GCDA forwarded the revised application and plan to the Kochi Corporation for necessary action.  The Kerala Trade Centre is a public utility building established in joint venture by opposite parties 3 and 4.  According to the GCDA, the second floor of the building should be used for parking only, NOC for aviation clearance has to be obtained by the Southern Naval Commandant and also Fire NOC and Environmental clearance had to be obtained.  The third opposite party had obtained all the requisite queries and submitted the same to the Corporation, but the Corporation did not do anything.  The revised permit was neither issued nor rejected.  The construction of the additional 13^th floor is strictly as per the building rules and there is no violation.  The 1^st opposite party had forwarded all the required documents for issuance of the revised permit.  The non-issuance of the permit was only due to the reasons best known to the Corporation.  The construction of the building was completed as early as in 2012.  But no action was taken by the Corporation.  The issuance of both the preliminary notice dated 14.07.2014 and final order dated 29.12.2014 to demolish the unauthorized construction was a great shock.  The Corporation without considering any of the contentions raised by the 1^st opposite party directed to demolish the unauthorized construction against which the 4^th opposite party moved before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution, Thiruvananthapuram.  The Tribunal has stayed the order of the Kochi Corporation.  There is no cause of action for the complaint.  The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as sought for. 

6.  The 4^th opposite party had filed written version with the following pleadings:-

 The 4^th opposite party was allotted with a plot in an auction having an extent of 43 cents in Survey No. 843 of Ernakulam Village, for the construction of a cinema theatre.  Since the film industry suffered a setback during the subsequent years, the 4^th opposite party could not effect any construction.  While so, Ernakulam Chamber of Commerce had approached with a proposal to construct a trade centre by way of joint venture agreement.  Consequent to that, three agreements were signed on 08.12.2003.  As per the said agreement, the 4^th opposite party is only a landlord and the 3^rd opposite party is the builder invested with all its powers for the completion of the project.  As per the terms of the agreement the construction had to be completed in 2006.  The submission of application for building permit and the marketing of the space is the exclusive domain of the 3^rd opposite party.  It was also agreed to start a joint bank account.  As per the terms the land is handed over to the builder, the 4^th opposite party who named the project as Kerala Trade Centre, the 1^st opposite party represented by K.N. Marzook.  The builder had failed to perform the obligations and covenants entered into with the 4^th opposite party.  No joint account was started and no audit as contemplated was carried out.  Though the builder had given a hope that the project will be completed, the 4^th opposite party was completely ousted from the project and was not even allowed to enter the land.  Aggrieved by the said act, the 4^th opposite party had filed a complaint before the Police.  The chairman of the trade centre was so powerful and accordingly the 4^th opposite party had filed a private complaint alleging offences under Sec. 406, 417, 420 and 34 Indian Penal Code.  The complaint is not maintainable as it does not satisfy the requirements of complaint to be filed before this Commission.  The complainant cannot be termed as a consumer.  The complainant has not disclosed the purpose of purchase of the apartment.  He had purchased the space for commercial purpose.  Kerala Trade Centre alone is responsible for the delay in completing the project.  The 4^th opposite party is not aware of the processing of the building permit.  The 4^th opposite party is not aware about the acceptance of Rs. 44,10,000/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakh Ten Thousand only).  This opposite party had published an advertisement dated 20.08.2014 alerting the public and investors by expressing their stand in the matter.  This opposite party has refused to execute the sale deed in view of the mismanagement and at present proceedings is pending against the 3^rd opposite party to obtain the agreed share amount.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 alone are answerable.  This opposite party never offered any service to the complainant.  They would seek for dismissal of the complaint. 

7.  On the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A6 were also marked.  On the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3, DW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B6 were marked.  The 4^th opposite party has given evidence as DW2 and Exhibits B7 to B10 were marked on their side.

8.  Heard the counsel for the complainant and that of the opposite parties.  Perused the records.

9.  The points that arise for determination are:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as sought for?
4. Costs?

10.  Point (i): The opposite parties would raise a contention that the complaint is not maintainable since the proposed purchase of the apartment was for commercial purpose with a view to gain profit.  Exhibit A1 is the tripartite agreement executed between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 4. 

11.  When a contention is raised that the transaction involved in the matter is commercial in nature, the burden is upon the opposite parties.  The complainant had given convincing evidence as PW1 before this Commission.  The complainant was cross examined at length by the counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 and 4.  During cross examination, the complainant would depose that he is an NRI who is having several business transactions and settled at UAE.  He has added that he and his family used to visit the native place every year.  According to him when he offers visit to Ernakulam, he used to stay in hotels.  He had also expressed his strong desire to get the flat assigned in his favour.  Through cross examination of PW1, nothing has been brought out that this proposed purchase of the flat was a commercial transaction.  On the other hand, it could be seen that whenever the complainant offers to visit Ernakulam, he used to occupy a hotel for his stay.  So there is evidence that the complainants are in need of the flat. No evidence is forthcoming that the complainant had proposed to purchase the flat for commercial purpose.  Therefore, the plea regarding maintainability of the complaint that the flat in question was purchased for commercial purpose is found untenable. 

12.  The next contention raised by the opposite parties is that Exhibit A1 bears a clause that if any dispute arose, it has to be resolved by way of arbitration proceedings and hence a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable.  Recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hemalatha Devi and others Vs. B. Udayasri reported in 2024(4) SCC 255 has once again declared in categorical terms that the consumer disputes are non-arbitrable as private fora cannot conduct adjudication with respect to a dispute coming under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  The legal position in this regard is well settled that the consumer dispute pertains to “rights in rem” and hence it comes under the ambit of non-arbitrable dispute.  Therefore, the provisions contained in the agreement to have a resolution by way of arbitration proceedings is not a bar for an aggrieved consumer to approach the Consumer Commissions for the redressal of his grievances.  Therefore, the contention raised by the opposite parties in this regard is also found untenable.  Therefore, we find that the complaint is maintainable.  The point is found accordingly. 

13.  Points (ii) to (iv):- The complainant would allege deficiency in service against the opposite parties on the reason that the construction was effected on the 13^th floor of the building by violating the municipal rules.  According to the complainant the opposite parties were fully aware that the proposed construction was against the municipal rules.  For substantiating this fact the complainant had caused production of Exhibit A6, the copy of the proceedings of the Secretary, Kochi Municipal Corporation dated 29.12.2014.  As per Exhibit A6 the Secretary of the Municipality had issued direction to the 4^th opposite party to demolish the unauthorized structure put up on the 13^th floor of the building as no permission was obtained for the construction of such a floor and the permit up to the 12^th floor was already time barred.  In answer to this contention, the opposite parties 1 to 3 would allege that they had approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution, Thiruvananthapuram and obtained a stay against the proceedings of the Secretary, Kochi Municipality.  Copy of the above order is produced by the opposite parties 1 to 3 as Exhibit B4.  Subsequently another petition was filed for regularizing the construction already put up.  Exhibit B5 is dated 09.06.2015 sent by the Secretary of Cochin Municipal Corporation to the Secretary to Govt., Local Self Government Department seeking an order for regularization of the construction already put up.  By virtue of the order passed by the Government, Kochi Municipal Corporation had requested the opposite parties 1 to 3 to submit a revised plan, revised aviation NOC, final fire NOC, and an additional FAR and additional fees with a calculation sheet for the purpose of settling the dispute in the proposed adalath to be convened on 04.03.2017.  So according to the opposite parties 1 to 3, the dispute raised by the Municipal Corporation was resolved and at present there is no impediment for the opposite parties in assigning the property in favour of the complainant.

14.  The learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 would submit that the complainant had approached this Commission for obtaining an order for refund of the money along with interest.  But after the institution of the proceedings, the complainant had filed an application and obtained an order from this Commission directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 to cause execution of the assignment deed pertaining to the flat in favour of the complainant.  As per the direction of this Commission, the opposite parties had prepared the assignment deed in the requisite stamp paper and produced before this Commission as Exhibit B2.  So the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 1 to 3 would submit that in fact the complainant had given up the relief with respect to the prayer in the complaint and insisted for another relief in getting the assignment deed executed in his favour with respect to the flat and the opposite parties 1 to 3 had already prepared the assignment deed and brought the same before this Commission.  So the learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 would request that the only option available to the complainant is to seek for execution of the assignment deed.  In answer to the above submission, the learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the complainant is not at all willing for the purchase of the property on account of the inordinate delay and the complications arose as the construction was made by violating the rules and regulations of the Municipal Corporation.  The learned counsel would submit that the complainant had effected payment in January 2010 and a period of 14 years had elapsed.  So the opposite parties cannot insist the complainant that he should seek for a relief pertaining to the assignment of the deed in his favour.  On perusal of the case records, it can be seen that the interim order was passed by this Commission not on application filed by the complainant.  It was in fact a suo moto order passed by this Commission.  The 4^th opposite party had approached the Hon’ble High Court through writ petition No. 103/2017 challenging the correctness of the direction issued by this Commission to assign the flat in favour of the complainant.  The Hon’ble High Court as per the judgment dated 22.02.2018 had quashed the order of this Commission dated 10.11.2016 directing the opposite parties to assign the flat in favour of the complainant as the State commission had exceeded the jurisdiction in granting the relief to which the complainant never sought for.  So the objection raised by the counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 that the complainant is not entitled to get a decree for return of cash on account of his conduct in seeking for execution of assignment deed in his favour is found unsustainable especially on the ground that the complainant had never sought for such a relief and the Hon’ble High Court had set aside that order by virtue of the judgment in WP(c) No. 103/2017 dated 22.02.2018.

15.  The next contention advanced by the counsel for the opposite parties is that the arbitration proceeding was initiated and an arbitral award has been passed by the Hon’ble Justice R. Bhaskaran, former judge of the High Court and  arbitral award was passed as AR No. 31/16.  The copy of the award is marked as Exhibit B3.  Exhibit B3 bears a clause that the opposite party shall cause execution of the assignment deed in respect of the disputed flat in favour of the complainant.  So at present there is no impediment for the opposite parties to cause execution and registration of the assignment deed in favour of the complainant.  The stand taken by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in this regard is not supported by the 4^th opposite party.  The 4^th opposite party was examined as DW2.  DW2 had given evidence that the opposite parties 1 to 3 cannot insist the 4^th opposite party to cause execution of the assignment deed in favour of the complainant on the reason that various other conditions contained in the arbitral award are not seen complied with by the opposite parties 1 to 3.  In the joint agreement executed by the opposite parties there was a recital that a joint account has to be opened and the amount received from the prospective buyers had to be credited in the said account.  According to DW2 the above formalities have to be fulfilled by the 3^rd opposite party.  As per the power of attorney executed by the 4^th opposite party it is up to the 3^rd opposite party to do the needful.  He also stated that the arbitral award also bears such a stipulation.  So, on evaluating the stand taken by the opposite parties it is crystal clear that there are disputes between the opposite parties and so far the above dispute is not finally settled.  So also even at this point of time it is practically impossible for the complainant to get the title deed of the flat in question executed and registered in his favour.  So there is no meaning in attributing any fault on the part of the complainant in seeking a relief for the return of the money paid and the amount spent by him for the purchase of the flat in question.  In this regard it is significant to note that this Commission has directed the opposite parties to cause execution of the title deed in favour of the complainant.  The 4^th opposite party had filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and got the order set aside.  But during cross examination when the attention of DW2 was brought to the direction issued by this Commission, he pretended ignorance and spoke that he is unaware about the direction issued by this Commission.  The statement of the opposite party in this regard is apparently false on the reason that he had approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ petition and got the said order set aside.

16.  The stand taken by the 4^th opposite party in objecting the execution of the assignment deed in favour of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant was roped in the transaction by way of a tripartite agreement executed, the opposite parties 1 to 3 as builder, the 4^th opposite party as the land owner and the complainant as buyer.  The complainant is in no way responsible with respect to the dispute between the parties.  It is contended by the 4^th opposite party that the 4^th opposite party is only a land owner against whom no liability could be fastened.  The Apex Court in Akshay v. Aditya reported in 2024 KLT online 2232 has declared in categorical terms that by virtue of Sec. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, joint and several liabilities to land owner and builder to complete and deliver dwelling units be fastened.  The land owners are bound by the acts carried out by the builder/developer pursuant to the power of attorney executed till it was terminated in accordance with law.  On a careful analysis of the entire evidence on record, it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the opposite parties had executed a joint agreement with the complainant and on the basis of that agreement money was received by the opposite parties and subsequently they had declined to cause execution of the assignment deed on account of the inter se dispute among them. The evidence adduced would convincingly establish that all the opposite parties are found jointly and severally liable to repay the money received from the complainant towards the flat in question. So, the complainant is entitled to get back the money received by the opposite parties along with interest.

17.  The opposite parties had raised a contention that the complainant had already caused initiation of a criminal prosecution alleging offences coming under the Indian Penal Code.  The copy of the criminal complaint filed by the complainant in this regard is marked as Exhibit B1.  The 4^th opposite party had produced interim order of Hon’ble High Court staying the operation of the criminal prosecution initiated against the 4^th opposite party as Exhibit B10.  The final report pertaining to the criminal prosecution is not forthcoming.  So it cannot be found that any complex issues which involve the offence of cheating or breach of contract is made out.  So the complaint cannot be dismissed on the reason that complex issues are to be resolved.  Here, the simple question is whether there is any deficiency in service.  It is not disputed by the opposite parties that money was paid by the complainant.  There is also no dispute that they had not executed the assignment deed in favour of the complainant and handed over possession of the premises as stipulated in the tripartite agreement.  So it cannot be found that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief on the reason that he had filed a petition before the Police alleging commission of offences under Indian Penal Code.  Having due regard to the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to reach a conclusion that the complainant is a poor victim to the unfair trade practice by the opposite parties in roping him through a tripartite agreement and after receiving the entire money declined to comply with the conditions contained in the agreement for transferring the ownership and possession of the flat to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the entire money received and the amount spent for the registration of the assignment deed.  The complainant had caused production of Exhibit A2, the bank statement for proving the payments made.  As per Exhibit A2 it can be seen that On 07.12.2009 a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) is seen transferred to the account of the Kerala Trade Centre by the complainant. On 06.01.2010 an amount of Rs. 39,10,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Ten Thousand only) was paid to the opposite parties.    On 20.03.2015 an additional sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh only) was also paid to Kerala Trade Centre.  It is further proved that the complainant had paid Rs. 3,26,830/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty only) towards  the purchase of the stamp paper.  He had also spent a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) towards the interior work carried out as per the consent of the opposite parties.  So the complainant is entitled to get the aforesaid amount from the opposite parties.  The complainant had claimed interest @ 15% per annum with regard to the payments made in 2010.  This rate of interest appears to be on a higher side.  Having due regard to the inconvenience caused to the complainant on account of the deficiency in service, it is found that the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum for Rs. 44,10,000/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakh Ten Thousand only) from 06.01.2010 to 12.11.2015, on which date the complaint was filed.  The complainant had claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) as compensation with respect to the mental agony and trauma underwent.  On consideration of the entire hardship caused to the complainant on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, it is found that the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only).  Complainant is also entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum for the total amount with effect from the date of filing of the complaint i.e; on 12.11.2015 till the payment is made in full.  Having due regard to the hardship caused to the complainant in filing this litigation and facing trauma for a period of 9 years it is found that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)  as costs of the proceedings. 

18.  There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in depriving the complainant from seeking execution of the assignment deed pertaining to the flat and in getting possession of the same after completing the construction.  Therefore, all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount along with interest from the proposed date of handing over the possession of the flat i.e; on 01.01.2011.  The points are found accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows:

1. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally  pay the complainant a total sum of Rs. 56,36,830/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty only) [Rs. 44,10,000 + Rs. 6,00,000 + Rs. 3,00,000 + Rs. 3,26,830/-] being the entire amount spent by the complainant towards consideration, statutory fee, for interior work and for the purchase of stamp paper along with interest @ 8% per annum from 01.01.2011 to 12.11.2015. 
2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) as compensation .
3. The opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as costs of the proceedings. 
4. The opposite parties are directed to pay the entire amount awarded as per this judgment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment failing which the opposite parties shall pay interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made in full.   

AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER                                                                  

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb

APPENDIX

I.       COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Sunny Joseph

II.      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

A1     - Copy of agreement dated 28.11.2009

A2     - Copy of statement of account

A3     - Copy of e-mail dated 18.03.2015 sent by opposite party

A4     - Copy of sale deed

A5     - Copy of cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/-

A6     - Copy of order dated 29.12.2014 issued by Kochi Municipal Corporation.

III.     OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

DW1 - R. Sreenivas

DW2 - K.J. Joseph

IV.     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

B1     - Copy of complaint filed under CrPC

B2     - Sale Deed

B3     - Copy of arbitration award dated 26.02.2018

B4     - Copy of stay order dated 13.02.2015

B5     - Copy of letter dated 09.06.2015 issued by Cochin Municipal Corpn.

B6     - Copy of notice dated 10.03.2017 issued by Cochin Municipal Corpn.

B7     - Copy of agreement dated 16.04.2003

B8     - Copy of agreement dated 08.12.2003

B9     - Copy of FIR

B10   - Copy of order dated 16.12.2015

AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER