Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/6/2017

Kavitha Rajagopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.Ravindran & 3Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

G.Jehanathan

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                           MEMBER

 

C.C. No.06/2017

DATED, THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL 2022

Mrs. Kavitha Rajagopal,

W/o. Mr. Rajagopal,

Old No.19, New No.16, Peyalwar Koil Street,

Triplicane,

Chennai – 600 005.                                                                                                                          .. Complainant.

                                                       - Versus -

1. Mr. V. Ravindran,

S/o. Mr. K. Viswanathan,

No.36, 2^nd Street, Coral Classic Apartments,

Prithivi Avenue,

Abiramapuram,

Chennai – 600 018. 

 

2. Mr. N. Balakrishnan,

S/o. Mr. K. Narayanan,

No.11/ 2A, Krishnasamy Avenue,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

3. Mr. Mohammed Taher,

S/o. Mr. Mohamed Naser,

C/o. Mr. V. Ravindran,

No.36, 2^nd Street, Coral Classic Apartments,

Prithivi Avenue,

Abiramapuram,

Chennai – 600 018. 

 

4. M/s. Manju Foundations Private Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director

Mr. K.M. Vidhya Sagar,

S/o. Mr. Mathivadanan,

Pioneer Agnitia Park,

East Wing, 7^th Floor,

No.141, Kandanchavady,

OMR, Chennai – 600 096.                                                                                                                   .. Opposite parties.

Counsel for Complainant                            : M/s. G. Jeghanathan

Opposite parties 1 to 4                               : Ex-parte

This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 18.04.2022  and on hearing the arguments of complainant and upon perusing the material records submitted by both parties this Commission made the following order in the open Court:-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU.  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

            Present complaint was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the total amount paid towards the sale consideration amounting to Rs.17,40,000/-, to pay a sum of Rs.7,07,200/- towards interest on sale consideration and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant with cost.

1.         Brief facts necessitating the filing of complaint:

            The opposite parties 1 & 2 are the owners of the scheduled property comprised in S. No.17/4, 17/2, Pennalur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and the 3^rd opposite party is the Power of Attorney Agent of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  The 3^rd opposite party on the strength of the Power of Attorney registered the said schedule property in Document No.1610/2014 & 1611/2014 on the file of the SRO Sriperumbudur as a Power Agent entered into Promoters Agreement with the 4^th opposite party for constructing an independent villa in the scheduled site.  The 4^th Opposite party is the builder.  The complainant was allured by the influence of the advertisements made by the 4^th opposite party who is reputed builder for construction of building / independent villa in the name and style of ‘Havisha Homes’ and booked a villa bearing No.S2 to be constructed an extent of 929 sq. ft. which is an  independent house with super plinth area of 615 sq. ft. in the Ground floor along with car park for total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-.   The complainant on 17.08.2014 paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- as token advance for purchase of one villa bearing No.S2.  Tripartite Agreement dt.17.10.2014 was entered into between the complainant, 3^rd opposite party as Power of Attorney of Opposite parties 1 & 2 and the 4^th opposite party as Promoter.  As per the Agreement, fully constructed apartment would be handed over to the complainant within 18 months from the date of execution of Sale Deed. 

2.         Further, the complainant thus paid advance amount by cheques and on several occasions amounting to Rs.17,40,000/- between 17.08.2014 to 09.11.2015 and the opposite parties had issued valid receipts for the same. The complainant states that even after collecting 87% of the total consideration had failed to deliver the constructed villas per the Agreement amounts to deficiency in service.   Even after two years time, the 4^th opposite party not even rise the building beyond the 1^st floor.   Further, Sale Deed was not executed in favour of the complainant by the opposite parties which would amount to deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dt.25.11.2016 to the opposite parties and the 2^nd opposite party acknowledged the receipt of the same but had not sent any reply.  The notice sent to the opposite parties 1, 3 & 4 were returned with the endorsement as ‘left’.   The 4^th opposite party belatedly sent an evasive reply to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint is filed claiming refund of Rs.17,40,000/- with interest of Rs.7,07,200/- and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and cost.

3.         Even though notice sent to the opposite parties 1 to 3 and also paper publication taken inrespect to the opposite parties 1 to 3, they have not chosen to appear before this Commission. Hence, the opposite parties 1 to 3 were set exparte. M/s. A. Palaniappan, Advocate initially filed Vakalat and filed written version but subsequently had failed to file proof affidavit within the stipulated time and hence, the 4^th opposite party was set exparte. 

4.         The complainant filed his proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A17.

5.         Points for Consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant?
2. If so, for what relief the complainant are entitled to?

6.         Point No.1 :

Facts made out from the documents submitted by complainants:-

1. The complainants in response to the advertisements made by the 4^th opposite party had booked a villa bearing No.S2 to be constructed an extent of 929 sq. ft. which is an  independent house with super plinth area of 615 sq. ft. in the Ground floor along with car park for total sale consideration of Rs.27.00,000/-.
2. That the Pamphlet was marked as Ex.A1;
3. That the Diagram was marked as Ex.A2;
4. That the Promoter Agreement was marked as Ex.A3;
5. That the receipts for the payment made by the complainant on various dates was marked as Ex.A4 to Ex.A9;
6. That the reminder letter from the 4^th opposite party was marked as Ex.A10;
7. the receipts for the payment made by the complainant on various dates was marked as Ex.A11 to Ex.A13;
8. That the intimation letter regarding registration of Plot from the 4^th opposite party was marked as Ex.A14;
9. That the legal notice dt.25.11.2016 was marked as Ex.A15;
10. That the acknowledgement / unserved cover was marked a Ex.A16;
11. That the reply sent by the 4^th opposite party was marked as Ex.A17;

That the complainants have filed this complaint for refund of the amount of sale consideration of Rs.17,40,000/-, to pay a sum of Rs.7,07,200/- towards interest on sale consideration and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant with cost.

7.         Heard the complainant.   Though the opposite parties remained exparte, this Commission wants to dispose off the case fully on merits.   From the admitted facts as mentioned above, we could see that the complainant was allured by the influence of the advertisements made by the 4^th opposite party who is reputed builder for construction of building / independent villa in the name and style of ‘Havisha Homes’ and booked a villa bearing No.S2 to be constructed an extent of 929 sq. ft. which is an  independent house with super plinth area of 615 sq. ft. in the Ground floor along with car park for total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-.  The complainant on 17.08.2014 paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- as token advance for purchase of one villa bearing No.S2.  As per Ex.A3, Promoters Agreement entered between the parties, the house was promised to be handed over to the complainant within 18 months from the date of entering into the  Agreement.  As per Ex.A4 to Ex.A9 & Ex.A11 to Ex.A14, the 4^th opposite party had given receipts for the total amount of Rs.17,40,000/-  paid by the complainant.  Further in Ex.A17, the reply dt.08.12.2016 of the 4^th opposite party it reads as follows:

3. ‘However, as on date, we have received Rs.17,40,000/- only’. 

Thus the 4^th opposite party had accepted the receipt of the amount.  

8.         The opposite parties are legally obliged to construct and handover the apartment to the complainant as per the agreed schedule found in the Promoter Agreement.  Therefore failing to comply the terms as clearly found in the agreement after receipt of amount by citing irrelevant reasons clearly amounts to deficiency in service.  Thus we hold that the opposite parties had committed clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and we answer point No.1 in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite parties.

10.       Point No.2:-

As we have come to the conclusion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainants should be compensated in terms of money. It is evident as per the payment receipts, Ex.A4 to Ex.A9 & Ex.A11 to Ex.A14 issued by the 4^th opposite party that they have received Rs.17,40,000/- from the complainant.  Thus complainants are entitled for refund of the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.  Further, they are also entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by him.  Cost of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the complainant.   Thus, we answer point No.1 in favour of the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed as follows :-

1. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally shall refund the sum of Rs.17,40,000/- (Rupees Seventeen lakhs forty thousand only) with 18% interest from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant;
2. Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) for the mental agony & hardship;
3. Cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses. 

 

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                    R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

List of Documents filed by the complainant:-   

Ex.A1		Copy of pamphlet
Ex.A2	17.08.2014	Copy of Diagram
Ex.A3	17.10.2014	Copy of Promoters Agreement
Ex.A4	17.08.2014	Copy of receipt towards booking advance
Ex.A5	18.08.2014	Copy of receipt
Ex.A6	27.09.2014	Copy of receipt
Ex.A7	06.10.2014	Copy of receipt
Ex.A8	30.12.2014	Copy of receipt
Ex.A9	10.01.2015	Copy of receipt
Ex.A10	24.04.2015	Copy of reminder letter from the 4th opposite party
Ex.A11	14.05.2015	Copy of receipt
Ex.A12	06.11.2015	Copy of receipt
Ex.A13	09.11.2015	Copy of receipt
Ex.A14	02.09.2016	Copy of intimation letter regarding registration of Plot from the 4th opposite party
Ex.A15	25.11.2016	Copy of legal notice
Ex.A16	26.11.2016	Copy of acknowledgement / unserved cover
Ex.A17	08.12.2016	Copy of reply sent by the 4th opposite party

 

 

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                      R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                                                       PRESIDENT