Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/70/2015

M/s.M.Kesavan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The President The Madras City Co Op Building Society ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.Dhanalakshmi

07 Dec 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  15.04.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  07.12.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY THE 07^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.70/2015

 

 

M.Kesavan,

S/o.R.Munusami,

L-Block No.7,

May Flower Garden,

Srinivasa Avenue Road,

R.A.Puram, Chennai – 600 028.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

The President,

The Madras City Co.op.Building Society Ltd.,

No.101, Vellala Street,

Purasavakkam,

Chennai – 600 084.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 27.04.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. R.Dhanalakshmi

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M/s.R.S.Anandan, Shakila Anand &

                                                                    V.Rajagopal

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to register 2400 sq.ft plot in the name of complainant and also to pay compensation for unfair trade practice and mental agony with litigation expenses u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party developed plots at Tambaram Kishkintha Road, in the name of Hill Grove Town Project. He made an advertisement informing the public in respect of the said project that Rs.235/- per sq ft and CMDA approval awaited and “Few Best Plots are available” .The complainant intended to purchase 2400 sq.ft plot in the said project and he paid a sum of Rs.4,23,110/- by way of two cheques dated 26.02.2006 and 28.04.2006.

          2. On 29.11.2007 the complainant went to the opposite party’s office that time he was informed that the CMDA approval was expected within six months. During 2009 and 2011, the complainant received the correspondences explaining the reasons for the delay. On 27.03.2013 he received a letter from the opposite party due to shoot up of cost the sq.ft rate was raised from Rs.235/- to Rs.325/- and demanding the allottees to pay additional payment. The complainant also made a further payment of Rs.75,000/-. The opposite party though received entire  payment, he never assured the measurement of the land and the size of the plot allotted to the purchasers. The complainant was under the impression that he would be allotted 2400 sq.ft.

          3. On 08.02.2014 a meeting was called among the purchases and he was informed that a plot measuring 1356 sq.ft was allotted to him and the excess amount collected would be refunded. The complainant felt shock and refused to accept the lesser size plot and however he was convinced by the President Mr.Kabali that he would look in to the matter and ensure that he would get 2400 sq.ft. However, no such arrangements were made by him. Hence the complainant wrote a letter dated 05.02.2014 that it is not fair to allot only 1356 sq.ft instead of 2400 sq.ft after waiting for eight long years. The allotment of lesser area and made to the complainant to wait for eight years is an unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to register 2400 sq.ft plot in the name of complainant and also to pay compensation for unfair trade practice and mental agony with litigation expenses.     

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party has made advertisement in the leading news papers that he formed a layout to allot plots in Hill Grove Town and waiting for CMDA approval.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,23,110/- on various dates by way of two cheques to allot 2400 sq.ft. 

          5. The CMDA approval was granted in the year 2013 and the same was communicated to the complainant by letter dated 02.01.2014. Due to infrastructural facilities the cost price was enhanced from Rs.235/- to Rs.325/- per sq.ft. On 08.02.2014 all the purchases were called for meeting to allot plot and accordingly the complainant was allotted plot No.166 measuring about 1356 sq.ft and the tentative cost of the  said plot is Rs.4,40,700/-. This opposite party never agreed to allot 2400 sq.ft. The allotment was made based on the number of applications received and number of plots approved by the CMDA. In the conditions, it has been clearly stated that the size of the plot to be allotted may vary. Accepting the same the complainant applied for allotment and now he cannot dispute the size of the plot.

          6. If the complainant is not agreeing for the plot allotted to him the amount paid by him will be refunded as per the terms and conditions of the application. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,98,110/-  Hence the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

8. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the opposite party developed  plots in Hill Grove Town at Tambaram, Kishkintha Road and for the said project to sell the plot, the opposite party made Ex.A1 advertisement in a New Papers that the rate of Rs.235/- per sq.ft and the complainant is also willing to purchase 2400 sq.ft plot and he had paid a sum of Rs.4,23,110/- in the year 2006 on varying dates as per Ex.A2 receipts issued by the opposite party and the opposite party got CMDA approval only in the year 2013 and due to escalation of prices the cost of the plot per sq.ft raised from Rs.235/- to Rs.325/- and the complainant also paid another sum of Rs.75,000/- under Ex.B4 and thus the complainant totally paid a sum of Rs.4,98,110/-. Further on 08.02.2014 a meeting was held to allot plots to the purchasers and the complainant was allotted plot No.166 measuring about 1356 sq.ft.

 

9. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite party is that

i. He had paid the amount that he would be allotted 2400 sq.ft land and that was also evidenced by the receipt dated 28.04.2006 (Ex.A2 at page 5)  issued by the opposite party and however he was allotted lesser area  of 1356 sq.ft (Ex.A7)

ii He was made to wait for  more than 8 years even after payment of his money

10.The opposite party would contend that immediately after getting approval from CMDA plots were allotted to the purchases and it is the CMDA only took so many years to grand approval and further considering the receipt of applications for allotment of plot and the number of plots approved the plots were allotted to the purchases and therefore this opposite party has not committed  any deficiency in service .

          11. The opposite party while publishing Ex.A1 advertisement, he had clearly stated that CMDA approval is awaited. The said approval was granted in the year 2013 and the plot was allotted to the complainant as per Ex.A11 dated 04.03.2014. Therefore the complainant waited for eight years is not the fault of the opposite party and therefore in this respect he had not committed any deficiency in service.

          12. The definite case of the opposite party is that depends upon the volume of application received for allotment and the number of plots approved by the CMDA, he has to allot the plots to the purchasers including the complainant. In Ex.A2, in one of the receipt dated 28.04.2006, it was mentioned as 2400 sq.ft. Mere mention of the said 2400 sq.ft, it does not mean that the said extent was allotted to the complainant. The approval itself was granted only in the year 2013 nearly after 7 years. Only after getting approval the plots can be allotted and accordingly as per Ex.A11 the plot no.166 measuring 1356/- sq.ft was allotted to him. Further for 1356 sq.ft at the rate of Rs.325/- sq.ft the total cost price of the plot comes to Rs.4,40,700/- . The admitted case the opposite party and the complainant is that he had paid a sum of Rs.4,98,110/-. Hence the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.57,410/- an excess amount to the opposite party. The payment made by the complainant is sufficient to purchase the plot 1356 sq.ft extent only. Therefore, the opposite party had not allotted 2400 sq.ft to the complainant cannot be termed as deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Hence we hold that, the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant.

12. POINT NO:2

          The complainant’s money a sum of Rs.4,98,110/- is with the opposite party and he was allotted plot No.166 measuring 1356 sq.ft. The complainant paid more than the cost price of the plot allotted to him. During arguments the opposite party counsel also replied that they are willing to register the allotted plot to the complainant. Hence, if the complainant approaches the opposite party to register the allotted flat in his favour, the opposite party also shall register the plot to him.  Further the excess amount paid by the complainant shall be refunded to him and the complainant has to bear the Registration Charges. No costs. The complainant is not entitled for any other relief in this complaint.

 

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant had already paid the entire cost of the plot to the opposite party and whenever the complainant  approaches the opposite party to register the allotted plot No.166 measuring 1356 sq.ft, the same shall be registered in his favour. The excess amount paid by the complainant shall be refunded to him and the complainant has to bear the Registration Charges. No costs. 

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 07^th day of December 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL           Paper cutting of Advertisement

Ex.A2 dated NIL           Receipts 4 in number B 4, 23, 110/- 26.02.2006, (2)

                                         27/02/06, 28/04/06

 

Ex.A3 dated 29.11.07    Lr.sent by opposite party to complainant

Ex.A4 dated 26.10.09    Lr.sent by opposite party to complainant

Ex.A5 dated 18.05.11    Lr.sent by opposite party to complainant

Ex.A6 dated 28.01.14    Lr.sent by opposite party to complainant

Ex.A7 dated 08.02.14    Lr.sent by opposite party to complainant

Ex.A8 dated 10.02.14    Lr. by complainant to opposite party’s complainant  RTI

                                         Officer

 

Ex.A9 dated 15.02.14    Complainant to opposite party

Ex.A10 dated 04.03.14           Lr. By opposite party to complainant

Ex.A11 dated 04.03.14 Lr. By opposite party to complainant

Ex.A12 dated NIL                   Lr. by complainant to opposite party

Ex.A13 dated 04.08.14  Lr. On behalf of complainant to opposite party

Ex.A14 dated 13.10.14  Lr. by opposite party to complainant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 26.02.2006         Application requesting for allotment of plot by the

                                              complainant –R-1

 

Ex.B2 dated 21.08.2012         Letter of CMDA – R-2

 

Ex.B3 dated 22.02.2013         Notice to Tambaram Municipality – R-3

 

Ex.B4 dated 23.03.2013         Receipt for payment by complainant – R-4

 

Ex.B5 dated 13.11.2013         Memo of TANGEDO – R-5

 

Ex.B6 dated 21.11.2013         Advice slip of TANGEDCO  R-6

 

Ex.B7 dated 13.10.2014         Reply of the society R-7

 

Ex.B8 dated NIL            Layout – R-8

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT