KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.586/09 JUDGMENT DATED 7.8.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. M/s.Suryanelly Plantations (P) Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director Mr/M.S.Martin, S/0 M.K.Sebastian, Residing at Mattammal House, Trikkakara.P.O. PIN – 682 021. 2. Mr.Martin, S/0 M.K.Sebastian, Residing at Mattammal House, Trikkakara.P.O. PIN – 682 021. 3. Mr.M.S.Antony, -- APPELLANTS S/0 M.K.Sebastian, Residing at Mattammal House, Trikkakara.P.O. PIN – 682 021. 4. Mr.M.S.Thomas S/0 M.K.Sebastian, Residing at Mattammal House, Trikkakara.P.O. PIN – 682 021. 5. Mr.M.S.Jerome, S/0 M.K.Sebastian, Residing at Mattammal House, Trikkakara.P.O. PIN – 682 021. (By Adv.George Cherian Karippaparambil & Ors.) Vs. Sri.V.P.Gopalakrishnan, Vayalil, Kurisupally Cross Road, -- RESPONDENT Kochi – 682 015. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP.99/03 which was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties colleted a total of Rs.1,66,200/- from the complainant with the assurance and agreement to develop the township called ‘Sundale’ and to allot plots to the complainant by virtue of agreements dated 25.3.95 and 17.10.05 executed between the complainant and opposite parties. But the opposite parties failed to develop the township as assured and they also failed to refund the amount collected from the complainant with interest. Hence, the above complaint was filed demanding refund of the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,66,200/- with interest, compensation and costs. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. It was contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and that complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant has to approach the Civil Court to get his grievance redressed. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 3. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on his side. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below (CDRF, Ernakulam) passed the impugned order dated 28th May 2009 directing the opposite parties to refund a total of Rs.1,66,200/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of the payments till realization with a further compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. Hence the present appeal. 4. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal and prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The respondent/complainant appeared in person and supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and requested for dismissal of the appeal. 5. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant paid a total of Rs.1,66,200/- to the appellants/opposite parties . The first appellant is a Private Limited Company represented by its Managing Director. The second appellant is the Managing Director and the appellants 3 to 5 are the Directors of the first appellant/company. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that the appellants received the aforesaid consideration of Rs.1,66,200/- which was paid on different dates. Ext.A5 is copy of the details of payments effected by the complainant. Exts.A3 and A4 agreements between the complainant and the appellants/opposite parties are also admitted. A1 copy of the pamphlet issued by the appellant/company and A2 copy of site map issued by the appellant/company would make it clear that the appellants had given an assurance regarding development of a township and allotment of plots to the complainant. Thus, the respondent/complainant availed the services of the appellants/opposite parties for getting the plots developed and allotted to the complainant and the said services were availed on consideration. It is also established that the appellants received amounts towards consideration. The Forum below is perfectly justified in treating the respondent/complainant as a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 6. The materials on record would make it clear that the cause of action for the complaint was a continuing one. More over, this Commission had already considered the issue regarding limitation and it was found that the complaint in OP.99/03 is not barred by limitation and the same is maintainable vide Judgment dated 23.4.08 in Appeal No.430/03. More over, other investors had also filed complaints before this State Commission as OP.Nos.75/98, 76/98 & 77/98 etc. and this Commission vide common order dated 19.12.2000 passed an order directing the appellant/company namely M/s. Suryanelly Plantation Private Ltd. to develop the town ship as assured and hand over the plots with amenities to the complainants therein. The complainant herein has also produced copy of the aforesaid common order passed by this State Commission in the aforesaid consumer complaints preferred against the appellant Suryanelly Plantation Private Ltd. Thus, the issues involved in this complaint had already been considered by this Commission. 7. The evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 and the documentary evidence A1 to A6 stands un-controverted. No contra evidence is forthcoming from the side of the appellants/opposite parties. The Forum below considered all the relevant aspects of the case by appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. The Forum below has directed the appellants/opposite parties to refund the amounts collected from the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. We do not find any ground to interfere with the said order directing refund of the amounts collected by the appellant/company from the respondent/complainant with interest from the respective dates. 8. The Forum below has also awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- with cost of Rs.1000/-. The facts, circumstances and the evidence on record would show that the complainant suffered mental agony and inconveniences due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants/opposite parties. So, the Forum below is perfectly justified in directing opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony and in-conveniences suffered by the respondent/ complainant. There is nothing wrong in awarding compensation over and above the direction to refund the amounts which were collected by the appellant/company from the respondent/complainant. The interest at the rate of 12% awarded is also very reasonable. Thus, in all respects the impugned order passed by the Forum below is liable to be confirmed. Hence we do so. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER s/L | 
