Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/406/2013

T. MICHEAL DHAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

TRINITY DEVELOPERS, MANAGING PARTNER - Opp.Party(s)

J. RANJANI DEVI

25 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE        Thiru.S.KARUPPIAH                           PRESIDING JUDL MEMBER

                      Thiru. R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                     MEMBER

 

FA.No. 406/2013

 

(Against the Order dt.22.10.2012 made in C.C. Nos. 189/2007  on the file of

D.C.D.R.F., Chennai(North)

DATED THE   25^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

 

T.Micheal Dhas,

S/o Late Thanga Nadar,

Flat No.A-1, Plot Nos. 19 & 32,

Sanmathi Avenue Paruthipattu,

Avadi, Chennai 600 071                                     ..Appellant/complainant

 

                                                       Vs

1.M/s Trinity Developers

Rep.by its Managing Partner,

S.Natarajan,

#W. 365 North Main Road,

Anna Nagar West Extension,

Chennai – 101        

 

2. The Executive Engineer,

The Tamilnadu Electricity Board,

Kamarajar Nagar,

Avadi, Chennai – 54                                       ..Respondents/opposite parties

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant                  : M/s J.Ranjani Devi

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/1^st opposite party  : M/s A.Sheikpeer

Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/2^nd  opposite party  : M/s Hemalatha Gajapathy

 

 

            This appeal is coming on before us for hearing on 23.1.2023, we heard both side arguments and upon perused the documents, this commission made the following :

 

ORDER

 THIRU. S. KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.    

 

   This appeal is preferred by the appellant/complainant against the order passed in CC.No. 189/2007  by the District Commission, Chennai(North) on 22.10.2012 and praying to allow the appeal and consequently set aside the order passed by the District Commission, Chennai (North)  made in CC.No. 189/2007 dated 22.10.2012.

 

  The facts which are necessitated the complainant to make a claim is as follows;- 

 

1.        The case of the complainant filed a complaint in CC.No. 189/2007 stating that the complainant had entered into an agreement of construction with the opposite party and agreement of sale for the purchase of a flat in the ground floor at plot Nos. 19 and 32 at Sanmathi Avenue at Paruthipattu village, Poonamallee Taluk with the opposite party for the construction of flats ad-measuring 711 sq.ft including the common area for a total cost of Rs.7,82,100/-. The 1^st opposite party had also executed the agreement of sale in favour of the complainant on 20.9.2006, towards the purchase of undivided share. Inspite of the complainant paying the sum of Rs.8,25,000/- including for the extra work done, the 1^st opposite party had failed to complete the work in time. When the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party after fixing the house warming ceremony, the 1^st opposite party handed over the key on 20.12.2006 and assured that he would complete the pending work within 2 or 3 weeks, since inspite of the opposite party had not completed the work, the flat owners had sent communication on 3.5.2007 to the 1^st opposite party by listing out the pending work as mentioned in para 7 of the complaint. Without completing the work, the opposite party had issued a legal notice for which the complainant had sent a reply also. Since the opposite party had not completed the work inspite of the reply, the complainant had come forward with this complaint seeking relief as stated above.

2.       The opposite party had filed their written version stating that there is no deficiency of work committed by him and the complainant is still liable to pay Rs.38,799/- and he filed a suit before the Hon’ble District Munsif court in O.S.No. 280/2009 and it was also allowed in his favour. Hence they prayed the dismissal of the complaint.

3.       The District Commission after perusing the proof affidavit and exhibits Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7, Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6, dismissed the complaint.

4.       Aggrieved with the above order, the appeal has been filed by the complainant on the following grounds stated that the complainants case was not considered by the District Commission in a proper manner. The District Commission failed to note the construction was very bad and so many defects were found in the connected cases. Hence they prayed to allow the appeal.

          We heard both side arguments and perused relevant records.

5.       It is the case of the complainant that they entered into agreement and further entered into oral agreement for construction of some additional amenities. It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant was still liable to pay Rs. 38,799/-. Moreover as per Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.4, he filed a suit before the District Munsif  and got a decree in his favour. Though the liability to as per the prima facie to this commission. Apart from that accepted complainant averment and proof affidavit, no document was filed by the complainant to prove the defects in the construction or in unfinished work of the opposite party. The District Commission rightly concluded the deficiency committed by the opposite party in either construction or in completing the work was not proved by any acceptable documents. 

6.       Even the complainant failed to took out any commission in this regard. When the deficiency was not proved either to the District Commission or to this State Commission by appropriate documents or evidence, the case of the complainant was failed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7.       Since there is no error in conclusion and award of the District Commission, we don’t want to interfere with the findings of the District Commission and the appeal is liable to be dismissed without cost.

          In the result,

          1.  The appeal is dismissed.

2.  The order passed by the Learned District Commission,

     Chennai (North), made in C.C.No.189/2007, dated 22.10.2012 is

      hereby confirmed.

          3.  There shall be no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                            S.KARUPPIAH

            MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDING JUDL MEMBER