IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.101/06 Between: P.S. Jose, Jose Villa, Kavumbhagom.P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. Anzil Zachariah) ..... Complainant And: - The Secretary,
Kerala State Houseing Board, Housing Board Junction, Thiruvananthapuram. - The Exe. Engineer,
Kerala State Housing Board, Pathanamthitta Division, Kuttappuzha, Thiruvalla. (By Adv. Aji) .... Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant is the husband of Beena Jose and the father of Shiju. P. Jose. The 1st opposite party is the Secretary of Kerala State Housing Board and the 2nd opposite party is the Executive Engineer of the 1st opposite party’s, Pathanamthitta Division. The complainant’s wife and son applied for rooms at Revenue Tower, Thiruvalla owned by the opposite parties on 22.1.2005. On 10.2.2005 the opposite parties intimated the complainant’s wife that Room No. 9 and 10 in the 1st floor of the Revenue Tower is allotted to her and the complainant’s son was intimated that Room No.57, cellar floor is allotted to him and as per the directions of the opposite party an amount of Rs.16,000/- and 8,000/- deposited towards the security deposits for the said rooms in the name of the allottees. Thereafter a lease deed was also executed between the opposite party and allottees. However, the opposite parties refused to deliver the possession of the allotted rooms to the allottees. On 20.7.2005 opposite parties threatened to pay the rent due of Rs.13,100/- for room No. 9 and 10, and Rs.6,050/- for Room No.47 which was also paid by the allottees. But even after the remittance of the rent also the opposite parties did not delivered the possession of the rooms to the allottees. So on 8.8.2005 the allottees sent letters to the opposite parties for the delivery of the rooms, which was also not heeded by the opposite parties. While so on 24.4.2006, opposite parties again demanded the rental dues by saying that the allotment will be cancelled in default of the payment of the rental dues. The allottees applied for the rooms in the Revenue Tower for conducting some business for their livelihood, which was not materialized due to the non-delivery of the allotted rooms. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the allottees sustained financial loss, mental agony and other inconveniences. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service and they are liable to the complainants for the same. Hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite parties for the delivery of the allotted rooms and the refund of the security deposits and the rent paid along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.6,000/- for the mental agony and other harassments. 3. The opposite parties filed a version stating the following main contentions: That the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer as the relation between the parties are based on a contract. The opposite parties admitted the allotment of the rooms and the receipt of the payments made by the allottees. The allottees have not executed and submitted the lease agreement so far irrespective of the directions and intimations to the allottees. The delivery of the possession of the rooms cannot be effected without getting a properly executed lease agreement. The reason for the non-delivery of the rooms was due to the fault of the complainants and hence there is no deficiency from their part. The allottees are liable to pay the rental dues. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Relief & Costs? 5. The complainant’s evidence consists of the proof affidavit and the documents produced by the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A18. For the opposite parties, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence or they have not cross-examined PW1. After closure of the evidence, the complainant was heard. 6. Point No.1:- The opposite party is a service provider and the complainant herein had availed the service of the opposite parties and the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties is a deficiency of service. In the circumstances, we find that the complaint is maintainable before the Forum. 7. Point No.2 & 3:- The complainant’s case is that they have procured allotment of 3 rooms at the Revenue Tower, Thiruvalla owned by the opposite party intending to start business for their livelihood. In order to get the rooms they have deposited the security deposits, rental dues and executed the lease deed as per the directions of the opposite party. Even after complying all the formalities opposite parties have not delivered the possession of the allotted rooms by saying one or other reasons. Due to the non-delivery of the rooms the allottees are prevented from starting their business. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, they have lost their money and sustained mental agony, financial loss and other inconveniences. The act of the opposite parties is not justifiable and is a clear deficiency of service and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complaint for the said deficiencies. 8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit narrating his case along with 19 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A19. Ext.A1 is the copy of letter dated 22.1.2005 sent by complainant’s wife to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A2 is the copy of letter dated 22.1.2005 sent by the complainant’s son to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A3 is the allotment letter sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s wife. Ext.A4 is the allotment letter sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s son. Ext.A5 is the receipt for Rs.16,000/- dated 21.2.2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s wife. Ext.A6 is the receipt for Rs.8,000/- dated 21.2.2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s son. Ext.A7 is the photocopy of the lease agreement executed by Shiju. P. Jose. Ext.A8 is the receipt for Rs.13,100/- dated 28.7.2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s wife. Ext.A9 is the receipt for Rs.6,050/- dated 28.7.2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s son. Ext.A10 is the copy of letter dated 20.7.2005 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s wife. Ext.A11 is the copy of letter dated 20.7.2005 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s son. Ext.A12 is the copy of letter dated 8.8.2005 issued by the complainant’s wife to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A13 is the copy of letter dated 8.8.2005 issued by the complainant’s son to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A14 is the postal receipt. Ext.A15 is the of letter dated 24.4.2006 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s wife. Ext.A16 is the of letter dated 24.4.2006 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s son. Ext.A17 is the quotation dated 15.3.2006 for Rs.55,462/- issued by the Microsense Systems to the complainant’s son. Ext.A18 is the photocopy of the lease agreement executed by Beena Jose. Ext. A19 is the authorization letter dated 21.6.2006. The complainant prays for allowing the complaint. 9. In this case, opposite parties filed a version but they have not contested the case and adduced any evidence for substantiating their contentions raised in the version. 10. On the basis of the contentions of the complainant, we have gone through the materials on record. The available evidence goes against the opposite parties and we cannot find any reason for the non-delivery of the allotted rooms by the opposite parties to the complainant. All the documents produced and marked in evidence clearly shows that the complainants have complied all the formalities for getting the delivery of possession of the rooms allotted in their favour. Nothing on records shows any defaults from the part of the complainants and the opposite parties had delivered the possession of the rooms to the complainants. Thus the complainants case stands proved unchallenged and hence this complaint is allowable with cost and compensation. 11. In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows:- (1) Opposite parties are directed to deliver the possession of the rooms allotted to Beena Jose and Shiju. P. Jose within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order on the same terms and conditions of Exts.A7 and A18 lease agreement. (2) Opposite parties are directed to write off all the dues of the allottees herein, till the delivery of possession of the allotted rooms. (3) The amounts paid by the allottees other than the security deposits is to be adjusted for the future rent of the allotted rooms. (4) The allottees herein also are allowed to realize Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the opposite parties as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost. (5) The opposite parties are directed to comply the order within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the allottees are allowed to realize the whole amount remitted by them with 10% interest per annum from the date of payment till this date along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) from the opposite parties and in that event interest at the rate of 12% per annum will follow for the whole amount from today. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 11th day of December, 2009. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : P.S. Jose Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Copy of letter dated 22.1.2005 sent by complainant’s wife to the 2nd opposite party. A2 : Copy of letter dated 22.1.2005 sent by the complainant’s son to the 2nd opposite party. A3 : Allotment letter sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s wife. A4 : Allotment letter sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s son. A5 : Receipt for Rs.16,000/- dated 21.2.2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s wife. A6 : Receipt for Rs.8,000/- dated 21.2.2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s son. A7 : Photocopy of the lease agreement executed by Shiju. P. Jose. A8 : Receipt for Rs.13,100/- dated 28.7.2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s wife. A9 : Receipt for Rs.6,050/- dated 28.7.2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s son. A10 : Copy of letter dated 20.7.2005 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s wife. A11 : Copy of letter dated 20.7.2005 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s son. A12 : Copy of letter dated 8.8.2005 issued by the complainant’s wife to the 2nd opposite party. A13 : Copy of letter dated 8.8.2005 issued by the complainant’s son to the 2nd opposite party. A14 : Postal receipt. A15 : Letter dated 24.4.2006 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s wife. A16 : Letter dated 24.4.2006 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s son. A17 : Quotation dated 15.3.2006 for Rs.55,462/- issued by the Microsense Systems to the complainant’s son. A18 : Photocopy of the lease agreement executed by Beena Jose. A19 : Authorization letter dated 21.6.2006. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent Copy to: (1) P.S. Jose, Jose Villa, Kavumbhagom.P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta. (2) The Secretary, Kerala State Houseing Board, Housing Board Junction, Thiruvananthapuram. (3) The Exe. Engineer, Kerala State Housing Board, Pathanamthitta Division, Kuttappuzha, Thiruvalla. (4) The stock file.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
