Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
CC/455/2015
K.Subramaniyan - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Bank Employees Welfare Society - Opp.Party(s)
P.S.Seetharaman
05 May 2022
ORDER
Date of Reservation 20.04.2022
Date of Order : 05.05.2022
Date of Complaint Filed : 02.11.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.
PRESENT: TMT. B JIJAA, M.L., : PRESIDENT
THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.455/2015
THURSDAY, THE 5th DAY OF MAY 2022
Mr.K. Subramaniyan,
No.27/1, Perumal Mudhali Street,
Duraisamy Colony,
Royapettah, Chennai – 14. ... Complainant
..Versus..
The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Bank Employees Welfare Society,
Flat No.4, Mithra Flats,
Avvai Nagar (AIBEA),
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai – 600 049. ... Opposite Party
******
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s.P.S.Seetharaman
Counsel for the Opposite Party : M/s.R.Raveendran
On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party we delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,
1. The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under sections 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to allot a plot for the said payment of Rs.42,000/- paid by the Complainant ending with September 1993 along with a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation and monetary loss and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony.
2. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-
The Complainant is one of the Members of the Opposite Party society having Membership No.459. The Opposite Party promised that a plot would be allotted for the members on payment, the Complainant remitted a sum of Rs.42,000/- on 30th September 1993 itself. The Opposite Party should have allotted a plot for the said payment, but for the reasons best known to it, the Opposite Party had been evading the allotment of plot in spite of repeated reminders and request of the Complainant from 1993 onwards to till date. Hence finally after several letters and demands the Complainant sent a letter on 03.04.2014 to the Opposite Party society for refund of the said deposited amount with interest or allot the land for which purpose the Society was formed, for which the Opposite Party simply replied that the Society would revert back to the subject matter shortly by its registered letter dated 02.05.2014. The said letter of the Complainant and the reply respectively would reveal the facts in detail and the deficiency and insufficient service of the Opposite Party in not allotting a suitable plot for the amount received in the year 1993 itself. All at a sudden the Opposite Party Society refunded the amount paid by the Complainant i.e. the said Rs.42,000/- alone by way of Account payee Cheque drawn in favour of ING Vysya Bank Ltd., without paying any interest for the said amount which was lying with the Opposite Party Society for the past 21 years by its letter dated 18.05.2014 and the same would also reveal the insufficient service of the Opposite Party. Since his offer of receiving the deposited amount along with the interest for the past 21 years was not accepted, the Complainant demanded for the allotment of plot for which purpose the amount was paid by him and was enjoyed by the Opposite Party society for the past 21 years by the complainant’s letter dated 09.05.2014 which was sent by RLAD to the Opposite Party on 11.06.2014. The Complainant did not receive any communication or the repayment along with the interest. Hence he caused a legal notice dated 22.04.2015 for allotment of plot for the money received in 1993 by the Opposite Party society. The Opposite Party without honouring its commitment of allotting a suitable land simply replied by its letter dated 26.05.2015 with averments and allegations contra to the facts. In addition as a second time, the Opposite Party simply sent a cheque for Rs.42,000/- dated 26.05.2015 bearing No.167785 drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., GT Branch, Chennai – 600 001. The Opposite Party Society failed and neglected to pay any interest for the said amount of Rs.42,000/- which was lying with the Opposite Party Society for the past 21 years which itself causes not only monetary loss but mental agony to the Complainant. The Opposite Party grossly failed in its duty and provided insufficient service and showed negligence to the Complainant in not allotting a land even after receipt of Rs.42,000/- for allotting a land, simply kept the said amount for more than 20 years without allotting a land. The Opposite Party Society demanded additional sum to be paid without allotting the land for the amount received. Vexed by the attitude and negligent act of the Opposite Party Society the Complainant demanded for refund of Rs.42,000/- along with the interest, the Opposite Party Society simply returned the said sum alone without paying any interest. The said cheque has not been deposited at all, the cheque is time barred. The repeated reminders of the Complainant either for allotment or refund of the amount paid would clearly prove the insufficient and negligence service on the part of the Opposite Party Society. He is entitled for allotment of land having paid a huge sum of Rs.42,000/- in the year 1993, the Complainant suffered mental agony in not allotting the land by the society for the past 21 years. Had the Complainant purchased a land for the said sum in the year 1993, the said property would have enhanced in its manifold value by the passage of 21 years of period and even taking a normal calculation the property would have fetched a minimum sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. This amount will be a reasonable compensation for the Complainant from the Opposite Party society. In addition the Complainant is entitled for monetary sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony. However the complainant restricts claim for a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.Hence the complaint.
3. The averments made in the written version of the Opposite Party in brief are as follows:-
The instant complaint is neither maintainable in law nor in facts and is liable to dismissed in limine. The Complainant cannot be termed as Consumer and the complainant will not come within the definition of Consumer as per Sec 2 (d) of the Act. The Opposite Party is a Society Registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the Complainant is a member of the Opposite Party. A member of the Society cannot be termed as a Consumer of the same Society, in which he is a member. The Opposite Party is a Welfare Society and the Opposite Party is not carrying on business in real estate. The Society is not a profit making organization. The Opposite Party is not doing any business/commercial activity and serves for the betterment and welfare of its own members. Hence no complaint is maintainable against the Opposite Party and especially by a member like the complainant who is not paying any service charges. The Complainant has not chosen to disclose the obligations that are to be performed by him for the allotment of a plot/Flat subsequent to the initial deposit made by him. Without disclosing the same the Complainant has chosen to file this complaint as if this Opposite Party had rendered insufficient service. The Opposite Party Society was formed for the welfare of the Bank Employees. The Opposite Party intended to promote a housing complex especially a small township with all facilities for the Bank employees and that too at a far lesser rate than the prevailing market rate. With that intention, the Opposite Party sought to acquire 62 plots in Thiruvanmiyur during 1990s. These 62 plots form part of Thiruvanmiyur-Phase-1 Scheme. Though the said plots were in approved lay-out, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued Notifications under Sec.4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Opposite Party initiated proceedings not only for the release of the said plots from the acquisition proceedings but also for removing the encroachments. Though this process consumed a longer period, the cost of the land including all the expenses worked out far less than the market value. The Opposite Party parted with the documents of title to the intending members for availing housing loan from their respective employer banks. The Complainant opted for a Twin House in Thiruvanmiyur Phase-1 project. The Complainant initially remitted a sum of Rs.10,000/- thereafter the Complainant remitted a sum of Rs.32,000/- on 12.12.1992. Thus the complainant had paid in all Rs.42,000/- and opted for a twin house. In the General Body meeting held on 21.08.1993 it was resolved to collect the land component cost to pay the owners of the land and with a view to pay the cost of the land component to the owners of the land, as resolved in the General Body meeting held on 21.08.1993 requested the members to pay the land component in and by its letter dated 02.10.1993. As per the said letter the Complainant ought to have remitted a sum of Rs.1.75 Lakhs on or before 09.10.1993. In and by the aforesaid letter itself it was informed to all the members including the Complainant that in the event of not remitting the land component prior to 09.10.1993, the allottees in Phase-I would be shifted to Phase-II. But the Complainant failed to pay the said land component within the stipulated time. On seeing the project named as AIBEA Nagar (Thiruvanmiyur-Phase-I) and its lesser cost, more employees of the Banks were interested in availing of the services of the Opposite Party and in acquiring a house/flat. The Opposite Party negotiated with the owners of the adjoining lands and had entered into agreements with eight groups of families for the purchase of about 105 Grounds for Thiruvanmiyur Phase-II Project. These lands were also under land acquisition proceedings and number of encroachments was also there. The Opposite Party made all its efforts by contacting the concerned authorities, both in Government and in Tamilnadu Housing Board to get No Objection Certificate for the release of the said lands. But this Opposite Party could not succeed in getting the NOC. There were many hurdles in getting NOC from the concerned authorities for the release of the lands from the land acquisition proceedings. The land lords have been patiently waiting for about a decade, however the land lords demanded further advance in view of huge hike in the price of land. Hence this Opposite Party resolved to drop the Thiruvanmiyur Phase-II project and to return the contributions made by the members. This Opposite Party, when encountered delay in getting the No Objection Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and release of the land by the Government the Thiruvanmiyur Phase-II project was dropped. As a non-profit making organization, it recognized the fact that there is uncertainty about release of the land by the Government. The advance amounts paid to the land owners had to be collected back from them land-owners, to whom the same were paid out by means of collection made from the members and had to be refunded back to the members. In all the meetings/circulars of the Society, this fact has been disclosed to all the members. It was with great difficulty this Opposite Party could get back the advance paid to the land owners for Phase-II. On receipt of the advance amount back, the Society had sent registered letters to all the members wait listed for Phase-II including the Complainant on 30th March, 2007 for refund of the amounts contributed by them, duly forwarding them “Advance Receipt” the letter dated 30.03.2007. Subsequently, the Society had refunded the contributions to the members, who had applied for allotment of Plots/Flats, on receipt of the “Advance Receipts”; the Complainant has not chosen to receive the said contribution; excepting the Complainant all other applicants-members have received back their contributions on receipt of the Regd. Post Letter dated 30th March, 2007. But the Complainant failed to collect the cheque for refund. It never undertook to pay any interest on the amounts remitted by a member. It sent a cheque for Rs.42,000/- dated 13.05.2014 along with a covering letter dated 18.05.2014, the Complainant returned the said cheque stating that if the society launches any other project, the said amount may be treated as advance for the future project. Contrary to his representations, the Complainant has chosen to send a lawyer’s notice date 22.04.2015 with certain ulterior motives. The Opposite Party sent a reply dated 26.05.2015. The Opposite Party, along with the reply enclosed a cheque for Rs.42,000/- dated 26th May, 2015 bearing No.167785 drawn on ING Vysys Bank, G.T Branch, Chennai – 600 001 favouring the Complainant. And whatever the contributions remitted by the members were paid as advance to the land owners, they have not earned any interest from out of the contributions remitted by the members who opted for the allotment of Plot/flat/twin house. Hence it is false to allege that the amount paid by the Complainant was enjoyed by the Opposite Party for the past 21 years. The Opposite Party did not float any other project. The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant having failed to pay the land component within the stipulated time and in view of the fact that about 155 members who had paid the land component by performing their obligations had become the owners of plots/flats/twin houses at a rate far lesser than the prevailing market rate, had chosen to file this complaint with ulterior motives. The Complainant having failed to receive back the advance after the receipt of circular dated 30.03.2007 has chosen to file this complaint after a period of 9 years. The present complaint is barred by limitation. This Opposite Party had not acted negligently in rendering services to its own members. Each and every member of this Opposite Party known and very well aware of the day-to-day developments of the Project. The Thiruvanmiyur-Phase-I Scheme had come out successfully. The Opposite Party had acted diligently and without any negligence and rendered service free of charges. In fact, this Opposite Party has spent huge amounts in making its efforts to get the release of the lands for Thiruvanmiyur Phase-II Project and in fact, no deductions has been made for the amounts spent, for fencing the land, posting of securities to prevent further encroachments, while refunding the initial contributions made by the member. The Opposite Party Society has not enriched itself by earning any interest from out of the amounts remitted by the members. Further the question of paying any interest does not arise in view of the act that the Complainant has not chosen to evince any interest either to own a plot or a twin house by performing his obligations of remitting the amounts towards the cost of the Plot or twin house. Further the Opposite Party neither carries on any trade nor makes any profits and its object is only for the welfare of its members. The Complainant having failed to pay the land component within the stipulated time cannot have any grievance over his own faults. Hence the Complainant had suffered mental agony is absolutely false. The Complainant was requested by the Opposite Party to receive back the amount by letter dated 30.03.2007, the Complainant having failed to get the refund has no right to take his own wrong to allege the complaint is made within two years from the date of return of the deposited amount. There is no cause of action for the Complainant to file this complaint. The Complainant having failed pay the land component amount within the stipulated time and in view of the fact that the Phase-II plan was dropped, is not entitled to pray for allotment of a Plot for the Payment of Rs.42,000/- along with a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Complainant is not entitled to any compensation as and by way of monetary loss much less Rs.3,00,000/-. The Complainant has not suffered any mental agony and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation for mental agony much less Rs.2,00,000/-.
4. The Complainant has filed Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on the side of Complainant. The Opposite Party has filed Written Version, Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were marked on the side of Opposite Party.
5. Points for consideration :-
1.Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2.Whether the Complaint filed is within Limitation Period?
3.Whether the Opposite Party has committed deficiency of Service?
4.Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
5.Whether the Complainant is entitled for any other relief?
Point No.1:-
Admittedly the Complainant is a Member of the Opposite Party’s Society and had deposited a sum of Rs.42,000/- towards part consideration for allotment of a Plot in Thiruvanmiyur Project of the Opposite Party’s Society as found in Ex B.1 & 2 which proves that he had availed service of the opposite Party and paid part consideration for allotment of a Plot / Twin Houses and the contention of Opposite Party after having received Rs.42,000/- as part consideration for said allotment that the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Society is not maintainable, and they provided service free of charge to its members, are not at all sustainable. The Reliance made by the Opposite Party on Judgment reported in 1999 (2) Consumer Protection Reporter, Page 164 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar: Patna, is not at all applicable to the case in hand. Hence we are of the considered view that the Complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Society is maintainable. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.
Point No. 2 :-
The undisputed facts are that the Opposite Party has invited applications for allotment of plots to its members in Thiruvanmiyur Project Phase – I. The Complainant is a member of the Opposite Party and have membership No.459. The Opposite Party also admitted the payments made by the complainant towards allotment of a TWIN House in Thiruvanmiyur Phase – I and submitted his application form for the same. The Opposite Party contended that on 02.10.1993 they have called for remittance of Land Component in full solicited and the same was intimated to its members and accordingly the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- towards land component excluding payment of Rs.42000/- already made by the Complainant, as found in Ex.B3, wherein it is mentioned that the Opposite Party already demanded to remit the Land component of the above said sum and requested the Complainant to pay the Land Component of Rs.1,75,000/- immediately and without further loss of time. Further in EX.B3 it is also mentioned that “it has been decided that the allottees in Phase/I will be shifted on to Phase/II in the event of the relevant land component in its entirety not forthcoming immediately on receipt of this communication and in any case prior to 9th October ’93”. As the Complainant had not paid the land component as demanded by the Opposite Party, the Complainant was shifted on from Phase/I to Phase/II project of the Opposite Party, which was not denied by the Complainant and the Complainant has not filed any proof for having paid the Land Component of Rs.1,75,000/- within the date of demand made by the Opposite Party.
Thereafter the Opposite Party by letter dated 30.03.2007 addressed and sent to the complainant regarding Second Phase, Thiruvanmiyur Project, wherein it is mentioned that their difficulties in getting NOC which would of uncertainty and hence had decided to refund their members in full. And the contention of the Opposite Party would be that because of non co-operation of the Land lords the allotments agreed could not be made to its members in Phase II Thiruvanmiyur Project. Ex B 4 is the letter dated 30.03.2007 with postal receipt addressed and sent to the complainant by Registered Post, the Complainant had not denied the same in the written Arguments filed and had not complied with demand of signing and returning back of the Advance Receipt to the Opposite Party in order to enable them to dispatch the refund cheque directly to the Complainant, instead the Complainant remains silent from the above said letter dated 30.03.2007, which is Ex B 4, had sent a letter dated 03.04.2014 to the Opposite Party after a period of 7 years claiming for refund of Rs.42,000/- being the amount deposited by him on 30.09.1993 for allotment of Land with interest or to allot land as found in Ex A.1 and Ex B.5 and the submission for remaining silent by the Complainant that he was eagerly waiting with a fond hope to get an allotment of land and the Opposite Party in response to his Letter dated 03.04.2014 had sent a reply dated 02.05.2014, Ex.A2 wherein the Opposite Party had assured to revert back to the subject shortly, which again gave him hope that the Opposite Party either would issue a cheque for refund of Rs.42,000/- with interest as the said amount was deposited as early in the year 1993 and the same was held by the Opposite Party for about 21 years i.e, till the letter dated 03.04.2014 issued by the complainant, or would allot him a Land by the Opposite Party, which is sustainable in respect of refund to be made by the Opposite Party and not in respect of the allotment of Land as it has been clearly mentioned in Ex.B4 that the Opposite Party was in process of refunding the amounts to his members and hence though the question of allotment does not arise, the eagerness created by the Opposite and the hard earned money deposited by the Complainant with a fond hope that he would get a Land from the date of deposit in the year 1993 till 30.03.2007 to be considered in spite of the contention of the Opposite party that many circulars issued including one dated 02.10.1993 (Ex. B2) the complainant had not remitted the Land component as demanded in time, as the Opposite Party was very well aware that the Phase II Thiruvanmiyur Project could not be continued and even if the complainant had not complied with the demand made in Ex.B5 Registered Letter dated 30.03.2007, the Opposite Party would have sent the cheque of refund of Rs.42,000/- to the complainant taking secured measures to safeguard their interest, instead the Opposite party too had equally remains silent for a period of 7 years and only after Ex A.1 was issued had waked up and sent a cheque of refund dated 18.05.2014 for sum of Rs.42,000/- without interest by their letter dated 18.05.2014 (Ex.A3), that too all of sudden in contrary to their Letter dated 02.05.2014 (Ex.A2) which Letter to their convenience had not chosen to mark the same as document though they have the knowledge of the same.
The Complainant submitted that he had caused a legal notice dated 22.04.2015 to the Opposite Party as found in Ex A.5 and Ex.B-8 and on receipt of the same the Opposite Party had sent a reply dated 26.05.2015 to the legal notice along with a fresh cheque dated 26.05.2015 towards refund of Rs.42,000/- without interest, as found in Ex.A-6 and Ex.B-9 though it was expressed the non payment of Land component by the Complainant in time as demanded, it was also expressed about various factors and difficulties faced by them which made them to drop Phase II Thiruvanmiyur Project unsuccessful and also admitted the return of refund cheque sent along with Voucher made by the Complainant. Hence Ex.A3 and Ex.B6 being the Letter dated 18.05.2014 containing enclosure of the refund cheque dated 18.05.2014 and Ex.A6 and Ex.B9 gives cause of action to maintain this complaint and hence we are of the considered view that the complaint was filed well within the Limitation Period. The reliance made by the Opposite party with regard to Limitation period on judgments reported in 2011 (1) CPR Page No.185, 2011 (2) CPR Page No.164, 2011 (3) CPR Page No.115, 2011 (4) CPR Page No.104, 2017 (1) CPR Page No.284, are not applicable to the instant case in hand. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.3 :-
Admittedly, the Complainant had not complied with the demand made by the Opposite Party vide their Circular dated 02.10.1993 by remitting the Land Component amount of Rs.1.75 Lakhs on or before 09.10.1993 to avail an allotment in Phase I Thiruvanmiyur Project, the Complainant has been shifted from Phase I Thiruvanmiyur Project to Phase II Thiruvanmiyur Project and by Circulars from 06.01.1996 to 08.07.1998, EX.B-10 reveals that Phase II Thiruvanmiyur Project was under process and even in the Last Circular dated 08.07.1998 with regard to Phase – II is mentioned as “ As of date, there is no further progress on this score. Our efforts to get the clearance and NOC are on. A meeting of PH/II enthusiasts will be held when positive developments ensue.” Admittedly there was no correspondence or communications found to be sent by the Opposite Party, and only on 30.03.2007 by Ex.B.4 a registered letter was sent to the complainant, wherein on uncertainty and hostile attitude of landlords the Opposite party dealt with, the Opposite Party had decided to refund of the contributions made by its members towards the allotment of Land and requested to sign and return back the Advance Receipt to enable the Opposite party to send a refund cheque in favour of the Complainant. Hence the Complainant who was eagerly waiting with a fond hope to get an allotment of land from 30.09.1993 to 30.03.2007 by depositing his hard earned money of Rs.42,000/- has suffered serious mental agony part from monetary loss because of negligent act the Opposite Party who had failed to deal with the project of Phase II, Thiruvanmiyur, with utmost care having collected deposits from its members as early in the year 1993 and who had made the complainant to wait for 14 years without proper response for his anxiety and eagerness towards allotment of a land, clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party.
Point No.4 :-
Admittedly, the Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.42,000/- towards consideration for allotment of a Plot/Twin House, with the Opposite party on 30.09.1993. Admittedly the Opposite Party could not proceed with Phase II Thiruvanmiyur Project and had decided to refund the amount deposited to the Complainant on 30.03.2007. The Contention of the Opposite party that their society is a non profitable society, their service is for free of charge and no service charges was collected from the Complainant, the Complainant had not suffered any mental agony, hence they are not liable to pay any interest or compensation to the Complainant.
The Complainant submitted that he was with an intention that the Opposite Party would provide interest on his hard earned money of Rs.42,000/- been deposited towards allotment of a Land as early in the year 1993, but had failed to comply with the demand made by the Opposite Party under Ex.B4 nor the complainant would have demanded for interest immediately on receipt of Ex.B4, as there was no denial made by the Complainant in respect of Ex.B4. At the same time, it is important to note that the Opposite Party for a period of 7 years ie., from 30.03.2007 to 18.05.2014, only on 18.05.2014 for the first time the Opposite Party sent the refund cheque along with a voucher, that too after a Letter dated 03.04.2014 (Ex.A1) sent by complainant for refund of his amount with interest or to allot a plot and after responded to the said Letter by reply dated 02.05.2014 (Ex.A2) sent by the Opposite Party and the said refund cheque with unsigned voucher was returned back to the Opposite party. Thereafter on receipt of Legal notice dated 22.04.2015 (Ex.A5 & B8) sent by the Complainant, the Opposite Party sent a Reply dated 26.05.2015 along with a refund cheque for Rs.42,000/- which was not accepted and deposited by the Complainant and the non encashment of the said cheque was not denied by the Opposite party. Hence it is clear that the Opposite Party who had not taken any steps to deliver the refund cheque of Rs.42,000/- to the Complainant in the manner to law by safeguarding their interest and who had failed to refund the consideration amount of Rs.42,000/- deposited by the Complainant from 30.03.2007, the date on which it was decided by the Opposite Party to refund the amounts to its members and thereby had failed to secure the interest of the Complainant, though the Opposite party had contended that they had not received any service charges, they did free of cost, they have not deducted any amount spent for securing the lands.
As the Phase II Thiruvanmiyur Project in which the Complainant was promised for an allotment was found to be dropped by the Opposite Party in the year 2007 and having failed to refund the consideration amount of Rs.42,000/- from 30.03.2007 to the Complainant, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a on Rs.42,000/- being the consideration amount paid to the Opposite Party for allotment of a Plot / Twin House, from 30.03.2007 to 26.05.2015, the date on which Opposite Party refunded Rs.42,000/- by way of cheque. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for a refund of Rs.42,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 30.03.2007 to 26.05.2015 and also entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony suffered. The reliance made by the Complainant on Judgment dated 14.08.2015 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Case Nos. 347 to 350 of 2014 is not applicable to the instant case in hand. Accordingly, Point No.4 is answered in part in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.5:-
As Point No.4 is answered in favour of the Complainant the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief.
In the result this complaint is allowed in part. Hence, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Only) towards refund of consideration amount deposited for allotment of Plot/Twin House, to the Complainant together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 30.03.2007 till 26.05.2015, and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards mental agony suffered on the deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.
In the result this complaint is allowed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 5th day of May 2022.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 | 03.04.2014 | Letter of Complainant to Opposite Party |
Ex.A2 | 02.05.2014 | Letter of Opposite Party to the Complainant |
Ex.A3 | 18.05.2014 | Letter of Opposite Party to the Complainant |
Ex.A4 | 12.05.2014 | Letter of Complainant to Opposite Party |
Ex.A5 | 22.04.2015 | Legal Notice of Complainant to Opposite Party |
Ex.A6 | 26.05.2015 | Reply Notice of Opposite Party to Complainant’s Counsel |
List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-
Ex.B1 | 27.09.1991 | Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party requisiting to become a Member |
Ex.B2 | 12.12.1992 | Letter & application from Complainant to Opposite Party enclosing cheque for Rs.32,000/-. |
Ex.B3 | 02.10.1993 | Circular issued to members requesting to pay the land component |
Ex.B4 | 30.03.2007 | Circular issued to Members requesting to send advance receipt for the refund of amounts |
Ex.B5 | 03.04.2014 | Letter of demand from Complainant to Opposite Party |
Ex.B6 | 18.05.2014 | Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant enclosing cheque and voucher |
Ex.B7 | 09.05.2014 | Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party returning the cheque sent by the Opposite Party |
Ex.B8 | 22.04.2015 | Lawyer’s Notice from Complainant to Opposite Party |
Ex.B9 | 26.05.2015 | Reply by Opposite Party to Complainant’s lawyer |
Ex.B10
| 06.01.1996 07.02.1998 25.04.1998 08.07.1998
| Some of the Circulars issued by the Opposite Party to Members. |
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.