Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/2/2013

/s. D. Cube Constructions (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Director, R. Thulasiram - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.M. Ravindra, Rep. by Power of Attorney Rajagopal Thamban & 2 Ors - Opp.Party(s)

Aiyar & Dolia

17 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :   HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI                    PRESIDENT

                   THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                                               JUDICIAL MEMBER

                   TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                   

F.A.NO.2/2013

 

(Against the order in CC.No.171/2003, dated 20.09.2012 on the file of DCDRF, Coimbatore)

 

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015

 

M/s.D.Cube Constructions (P) Ltd,

Gowtham Arcade,

208, T.V.Samy Road,                                             M/s.Aiyar & Dolia

R.S.Puram, Coimbatore                                          Counsel for Appellant/Opp.party

Rep.by its Director,

Mr.R.Thulasiram.

-vs-

 

1.V.M.Ravindra,

   S/o.K.P.V.Menon

 

2.Jayalakshmi,

   W/o.V.M.Ravindra

 

3.Deepak,

   S/o,V.M.Ravindra                                              M/s.K.V.Subramanian

                                                                          Counsel for Respondents /

All residing at 57, Jalan Tamarind,                          Complainants

Southern Park,

41200 Klang, Selangor,

Malaysia,

Rep.by Power of Attorney,

Mr.Rajagopal Thamban,

Thirumalayapalayam,

Coimbatore 641 105.

 

          The respondents are the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief.  The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.171/2003, dated 20.09.2012.     

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.12.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

 

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          The opposite party is the appellant.

 

2.       The complainant entered into an agreement dated 9.4.1996 and on 9.12.1996 with the opposite party for the purchase of flat No.2 & 3 in the 2^nd floor and flat No.1 in 3^rd opposite party in D.No.4/115 Redfields, Coimbatore each measuring 2275 sq.ft at the rate of Rs.800/- per sq.ft in total for Rs.27,44,000/- and the cost for car parking Rs.1,50,000/- and thereby when the possession was demanded the opposite party sent a letter dated 31.01.2000 claiming the  cost of flats at the rate of Rs.1350/- per sq.ft and to pay Rs.75,000/- each  for car park and thereby for the total costs of Rs.47,01,150/- demanding the balance amount of Rs.23,50,000/- from them and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming directions to the opposite party to hand over the 3 flats as specified fully completed ready for occupation as per the agreement and to pay Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, damages due to deficiency of service and for costs.

3.       The opposite party denied the allegations contended that they have not entered into any such agreement as alleged by the complainant and one Mr.Thulasiraman who was holding the post of Director at the point of time and colluded and connived to the complainant and fabricated the documents agreeing to sell the flat at the rate of Rs.800/- and thereby they have made demand for balance amount at the rate of Rs.1350/-  and  then director Thulasiraman was removed from the directorship and subsequently from 13.3.1997 and thereby the alleged agreements are not acceptable and thereby the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.       The District Forum on the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry allowed the complaint by accepting the contentions of the complainants directed the opposite party to hand over and put the complainants in the possession of the flats 2 and 3 in the 2^nd floor and 3^rd floor as per the specification entered into an agreement and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.1000/- as costs.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party has come forward with this appeal contended the same ground as before the District Forum and further stated that the District Forum erroneously passed an order against the flat sold to one Amrudanjan Limited illegally which cannot be decided and the agreement and the alleged Director Thulasiraman failed to brought into the account of Rs.8,00,000/- said to have been paid by the complainant and the letters sent by the opposite party to the complainants demanding balance amount during the year 2000 and earlier letters were not taken into account and thereby the District Forum exceeded the jurisdiction having decided the matters which are in civil nature and thereby the appeal is to be allowed.

6.       We have heard both sides arguments, contentions and carefully considered the materials placed before us in this regard.  It is not in dispute that the complainants have entered into an agreement with the opposite party for the purchase of 3 flats as mentioned in the complaint and the complainants alleged that they  have  entered  into  an agreement as per Ex.A1 and A2 and on the basis of the same the sale deed were executed in undivided share under Ex.A3 and A4 and also it is not in dispute that the complainants have to pay Rs.23,50,000/- as per the alleged agreement Ex.A1 and A2  at  the rate of Rs.800/- per sq.ft  for  the purchase of these flats  under  Ex.A1  and A2 are executed by the opposite party in the name of M/s.D-Cube Constructions Private Limited a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 represented by one of the Directors Mr.R.Thulasiram, S/o.K.Radhakrishnan in favour of the complainants 1 and 2 under Ex.A1 and in favour of 3^rd complainant under Ex.A2 in which as per the terms the flat to be purchased under construction at the rate of Rs.800/- per sq.ft 2275 sq.ft each and Rs.50,000/- for car parking and the amounts are to be paid as per the schedule in the agreement and as per the condition No.3 the building of construction to be handed over before 21^st February 1997 subject to unforeseen circumstances and on that basis undivided shares of lands sale deed were executed under Ex.A3 and A4.  But the appellant / opposite party now come forward with the plea that the said Director Thulasiram is no more in the company and he had colluded with the complainants by selling the properties at the rate of Rs.800/- per sq.ft but actually the price fixed was Rs.1350/- and thereby the complainants have to pay the balance amount of Rs.23,50,000/- only at the rate of Rs.1400/- they have sold a flat in the same campus to one Amrutanjan Finance Limited under Ex.B4 and thereby the complainants are directed to pay the balance amount with interest.  While considering these contentions since because one Thulasiram, Director of the company was no more as Director in the company.  The opposite party contended that whatever it is the agreement and documents executed cannot be accepted or considered as valid and those contentions cannot be accepted when the appellants failed to prove that he was not the authorized person or Director at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and A2 on behalf of the company and his activities as a Director of the company were nullified with retrospective effect he was removed from the Board of Directors, for these the opposite party / appellant relying upon Ex.B4, B5, and B6.  On perusal of the documents Ex.B4 is the agreement entered into between M/s.D.Cube Construction Private Ltd, represented by Managing Director Chandra Mohan and one M/s.Amrutanjan Finance Ltd on 3.1.1997 for selling the land and construction of flat, build up area 1120 sq.ft in the second floor in D.No.4/115, Redfield, Coimbatore at the rate of 1400 per sq.ft with car parking for Rs.1,00,000/- and on this basis the appellant now claimed the complainant also to pay at the rate of Rs.1350/- as already pointed out if the dispute is between the Directors of the company erstwhile Managing Director Mr.Thulasiram they being the registered company they cannot simply evade the responsibilities and liabilities of the company for whose benefits on behalf of the company Directors acted and it is for the company to settle the dispute among themselves if at all and the 3^rd parties who have entrusted money in the hope of getting products from them cannot be penalised.  On perusal of Ex.B5 it is the certificate under Form-32 for the appointment of Director one Mr.R.Chandra Mohan as Managing Director with effect from 26.05.95 as per the Board Meeting held on 9.6.1995 and on that basis it is alleged that he had executed the Agreement under Ex.B4 in favour of Amrutanjan Finance Limited and as far as Thulasiram is concerned date of appointment or changed is mentioned as 13.3.1997 and particulars of change mentioned  as  ceased  to be  a Director  of  the company  on  his removal from that office pursuant to section 284 of the Companies Act,1956 vide the resolution passed at the Extra-ordinary General Meeting of the Company held on 13.3.1997 as per Ex.B6.  But Ex.B6 did not disclosed from which date he was appointed as Director only disclosing the date of removal as on 13.3.1997.  Since Ex.A1 and A2 were executed on 9.4.1996 nearly one year before his removal.  Ex.A1 and A2 on behalf of the company the Director Thulasiram had executed the agreement for construction of flats and after receiving entire payment as per Ex.A16 notice for Rs.23,50,000/- as demand was received admittedly which was sent on 31.1.2000 why the appellant kept quiet regarding the dispute in cost of the flat to inform the complainant was not established except to send the communications demanding for payment of balance money at the rate of Rs.1350/- per sq.ft for which it was never proved that the complainants have agreed for and thereby we are of the view that the dispute between the directors of the company or its employee cannot be the reason for to repudiate the agreement entered into by a corporate body with the consumers and saying the present Directors need not honour the agreement, refused to execute the sale deed after having received the entire payment as per agreement cannot be accepted.  As far as the sale of flat to Amrutanjan Finance Limited under Ex.B4 is concerned the appellant has contended that the sale not concerned with that of the complainant’s case, only for the purpose of eliciting that they have sold the flat at the rate of Rs.1400/- per sq.ft it relied upon and not to the extent of Rs.800/- as alleged by the complainants which was not agreed by the appellant and said due to the collusion with then Director Thulasiraman and in order to show that all the flats are being sold only at the rate of Rs.1350/-   and  above and  the  District Forum erroneously observed the sale to the Amrutanjan Finance Limited as unfair trade practice.  While perusing the order of the District Forum in para-16 it is observed when the complainants have paid the entire sale consideration the opposite party have no right to sell the flats to the Amrutanjan Finance Limited under Ex.B4.  This observation may be wrong as the District Forum was under the impression that the flats ment for the complainants were sold to Amrutanjan Finance Limited which is no way affects the right of the complainants in this case.  In view of the foregoing discussions and observations made and since the allegations of the opposite party that the executions under Ex.A1 and A2 were made in collusion with the  then Director Thulasiraman they are not liable and bound for the terms and conditions under Ex.A1 and A2 are not agreeable and acceptable and the disputes between the Directors and Members of the company will not make the appellant to keep away from their liabilities as a company and their internal disputes may not be a reason for disputing the rights of the complainants when they have had valid documents executed by the authorized person as Director under Ex.A1 and A2 on behalf of the opposite party company and thereby we are of the view that the District Forum considered all the relevant materials in this regard and came to the proper conclusion by finding that the appellants are liable for the claims made by the complainants and as far as the award of compensation is concerned the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for financial loss and mental agony caused to the complainants due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the parties, while considering the delay caused to the complainants in handing over possession of the flats  which are  due to  be handed  over in the year 1998 and since 16 years have been lapsed having suffered loss of possession, rent etc the amount of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is reasonable one considering the purchase of 3 numbers of flats by the complainants by paying all the sale amounts and thereby we feel there is no need for any interference with the quantum of compensation also and in all respects the appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits by confirming the order of the District forum and accordingly.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.171/2003, dated 20.09.2012.

          The appellant / opposite party is directed to comply the directions within 4 weeks from the date of this order.

          No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIAYAVATHI              A.K.ANNAMALAI                               R.REGUPATHI

      MEMBER                        (J) MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT