Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/01/2007

Mr.K.Devanand - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.V.Homes (P) Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

V.Annalakshmi

09 Nov 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   03.08.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   09.11.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.1/2007

THURSDAY THIS  9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

1. Mr. K. Devanand,

2. Mrs. Kesarrani,

NO.17/58, Venkatesan Nagar,

Extension –II,

(Opp. Padmasarangapani Matriculation

School), Virugambakkam,

Chennai 600 092.                                              Complainant

                                        Vs

 

1. M/s. V.V.Homes (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

R.Veeraraghavan,

NO.6, Rangarajapuram Main Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai 600 024.

 

2. M/s. Corporation Bank Homes Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.11-A, Ormes Road,

1^st Floor, Kilpauk,

Chennai 600 010.                                        Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant        :   M/s. V.Annalakshmi & another        

Counsel for opposite party-1   :   M/s. C.Ravi & B.Arul Murugan

Counsel for opposite party-2   :   M/s. S.Sethuraman

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to get proper approval of the flat from the CMDA or to repay a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- to the complainant with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards the cost the complaint.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that the complainant purchased flat measuring 650 sq. ft. including common area in 2^nd floor of Flat No.32, Door No.10, State Bank Colony, Virugambakkam, Chennai after obtaining loan from the 2^nd opposite party.  Further the complainant state that at the time of purchase the complainant have no sufficient amount.  Hence the 1^st opposite party  advised to avail the loan of Rs.9.50 lakhs from the 2^nd opposite party.    On the other hand the complainant availed loan and purchased the apartment.   Further the complainant state that at the time of entering into sale agreement the 1^st opposite party cleverly suppressed the fact that the plan of the said flat was not approved.    But the complainant availed and purchased the apartment on the belief that without proper approval the loan shall not be sanctioned.  Further the complainant state that the complainant  paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to the 1^st opposite party and  applied for the loan of Rs.9,50,000/- after due inspection by the 2^nd opposite party the said loan was sanctioned on 7.1.2003 payable within 15 days to the EMI of 180 equal monthly installments of Rs.10304/-.   The complainant also regularly paying the dues till the receipt of notice the 2^nd opposite party on 25.7.2005 and thereafter the complainant paid a sum of  Rs.28,000/- to avoid public auction.  The complainant also state that  during the 1^st week of March 2006 the Building inspector of Chennai Corporation inspected the building and informed the complainant that there are deviations and the construction of the flat is in violation of the  approved plan and action will be initiated for demolition.   As such the act of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the  1^st  opposite party is  as follows:

The  1^st opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The 1^st opposite party state that  the allegation of suppression of the facts that the plan of the complainant flat was not approved by the CMDA and managed to get the signature of the complainant in the sale agreement is denied.   The 1^st opposite party provided a set  of documents including the copy of the plan to the complainant for scrutinization, on scrutinzation of the documents furnished by the 1^st opposite party the complainant purchased the property.    The 1^st opposite party state that during the 1^st week of March 2006, the complainant came to know about the deviation on information from Chennai Corporation.   The complainant knowing fully that there is a minor deviation has come forward to file this complaint seeking compensation is illegal.  The 1^st opposite party deny the allegation that it has colluded to the 2^nd opposite  party and sanctioned the loan.  The 2^nd opposite party  is a financial institution having a legal department to verify the documents purported to be created, as an EM after satisfying the same the loan will be sanction.   In this regard the 1^st opposite party has no any nexus with the 2^nd opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party denies he has failed to discharge his duties under agreement and the same amount to deficiency in service.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the  2^nd   opposite party is  as follows:

The  2^nd  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The 2^nd opposite party state that  the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to the 1^st opposite party.  It is true that the complainant availed a loan from the 2^nd opposite party by mortgaging the property purchased out of loan proceeds, but it is incorrect to state that the complainant was regular in making the repayment.    The complainant was a defaulter and hence notice under Sec. 139 (2) of the Sarfeasi Act was issued to the complainant.  It is a matter between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party and this opposite party is no way connected or responsible for the same.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 documents marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

5.   The points for the consideration is: 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 7.1.2003 alternatively whether the opposite parties liable to obtain proper approval of the flat from CMDA as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief of stop threatening and accepting the payment by the 2^nd opposite party with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as prayed for ?

 

6.  POINTS  1 & 2:

        Both parties  not turned up to advance any oral arguments, after filing their respective written arguments.   Admittedly the complainant purchased a flat measuring 650 sq. ft. including common area in the 2^nd floor of Flat No.32, Door No.10, State Bank Colony, Virugambakkam, Chennai after obtaining loan from the 2^nd opposite party.  The contention of the complainant is that at the time of purchase the complainant have no sufficient amount.  Hence the 1^st opposite party advised to avail the loan of Rs.9.50 lakhs from the 2^nd opposite party.  But there is no record to prove the said allegation.    On the other hand the complainant availed loan and purchased the apartment.   Further the contention of the complainant is that at the time of entering into sale agreement the 1^st opposite party cleverly suppressed the fact that the plan of the said flat was not approved.    But it is admitted that the complainant availed loan and purchased the apartment and without proper approval the loan shall not be sanctioned.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the complainant  paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to the 1^st opposite party and  applied for the loan of Rs.9,50,000/- after due inspection by the 2^nd opposite party the said loan was sanctioned on 7.1.2003 payable within 15 days to the EMI of 180 equal monthly installments of Rs.10304/-.   The complainant was also regularly paying the dues till the receipt of notice to the 2^nd opposite party on 25.7.2005 and thereafter the complainant paid a sum of  Rs.28,000/- to avoid public auction.  The contention of the complainant is that during the 1^st week of March 2006 the Building inspector of Chennai Corporation inspected the building and informed the complainant that there are deviations and the construction of the flat is in violation of the  approved plan and action will be initiated for demolition which caused mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complainant filed this case claiming compensation and cost of the building.

7.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the allegation of availing loan with the help of 1^st opposite party is absolutely false.   The complainant  himself  approached the 2^nd opposite party and filed all relevant documents obtained loan and purchased the apartment.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the allegation of suppression of material fact of plan permission and other documents are absolutely false; without plan permission the 2^nd opposite party never grant any loan.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the inspector of Chennai Corporation inspected the apartment and find out the deviation, violation of plan permission etc. is not accepted because while constructing the apartment there may be some deviations happened.  The 1^st opposite party is prepared to pay the amount if any paid by the complainant to the Chennai Corporation and is ready and willing to obtain proper regularization.

8.     The contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that admittedly the complainant availed the loan of Rs.9.5 lakshs  the monthly EMI is Rs.10304/-.  The complainant paid the installment regularly for two years.  Thereafter defaulted in repayment of the loan and became a NPA,  hence proceedings were initiated under Securitization Act in S.A.S.R.No.1698/2007 on the file of Debit Recovery Tribunal -3 and order of stay on 10.10.2007.  Therefore the question of threading never arise.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the 1^st  opposite party shall obtain proper regularization within one month and shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.    No order as against the 2^nd opposite party.  The points are answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.  The 1^st  opposite party shall obtain proper regularization within one month and shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainants.   No order as against the 2^nd opposite party.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

 

           Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 9^th day  of  November 2017.  

 MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

 

Ex.A1-  25.11.2002  - Copy of Construction Agreement.

Ex.A2-  28.11.2002  - Copy of Agreement of sale.

Ex.A3- 10.1.2003    - Copy of sale deed.

Ex.A4- 15.9.2004     - Copy of Homes loan sanction certificate by Corp. bank.

Ex.A5- 25.7.2005    - Copy of Notice sent by the opposite parties.

Ex.A6- 28.3.2006    - Copy of reply notice.

Ex.A7- 29.3.2006   - Copy of Ack. Cards.

Ex.A8- 14.4.2006    - Copy of Letter to Commissioner of police.

Ex.A9-  15.4.2006   - Copy of loan ledger.

Ex.A10- 28.4.2006           - Copy of notice to the opposite parties.

Ex.A11- 2.5.2006    - Copy of Ack. Cards.

Ex.A12- 17.5.2006   - Copy of letter to Deputy Secretary to Govt.

Ex.A13-                   - Copy of the Site Plan.

Ex.A14-                - Copy of notice under Secuitization act sent by the

                                 2^nd opp. party 

Ex.A15- 10.10.2007 – Copy of Passport copy of the complainant.

Ex.A16-                  -  Copy of letter sent by the 2^nd opp. party.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

 

Ex.B1-  7.7.2005   -  Copy of Notice under Sec.13 (2) OF THE Sarfeasi Act.

Ex.B2- 13.6.2006  -  Copy of Possession Notice.

Ex.B3- 10.9.2007  -  Copy of sale notice.

Ex.B4- 10.10.2007         -  Copy of Interim order passed by Debt. Recovery

                                Tribunal-1, Chennai.

Ex.B5-  28.11.2002 – Copy of agreement of sale.

Ex.B6-  25.11.2002 – Copy of Construction agreement.

Ex.B7- 15.7.2003  -   Copy of Cheque.

Ex.B8- 21.6.2006  -   Copy of letter from the complainant to the Virukappakkam

                                 Police station. Chennai.

                 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.