Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/48/2021

Padmavathi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIMEKA. Sathappan, - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

20 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE  R. SUBBIAH           :     PRESIDENT

                               THIRU R. VENKATESAPERUMAL               :     MEMBER

 

C.C.No.43 of 2021

Friday, the 20^th day of May 2022

 

Complaint  filed on : 06.10.2021

Orders Pronounced on : 20.05.2022

 

Padmavathy

W/o. Late Marimuthu

Old No.65, New No.63

Ground floor G-1, Second floor S-1,

Ponni Enclave, Seeyalam 1^st Street

Villivakkam, Chennai -600 049.                                                                                                                                     .. Complainant

 

- Vs -

Vimeka Sathappan

S/o. Kaliappan

Old No.8/4, New No.13/4

1^st Floor, Vellala Street

Purasawalkam

Chennai – 600 084.                                                                                                                                                  .. Opposite Party

 

    Counsel for the Complainant          :   M/s. Party-in-Person

    Counsel for the Opposite Party       :  M/s. K. Ravikumar

 

This complaint is coming before us today, on 06.05.2022, and on hearing the submission of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

 

           This complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended) against the opposite party, claiming to direct the opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant towards deficiency of service and to pay the litigation cost to the complainant.

 

1.       The gist of the Complaint averments is as follows:   The case of the Complainant is that the opposite party is a Builder.  The complainant entered into an Agreement with the opposite party to construct two flats, one on the ground floor and another on the 2^nd floor, namely G1 and S1 respectively.  But, without completing the construction, the opposite party had handed over the keys to the complainant.  That apart, the original documents were not handed over to her.  Believing the words of the opposite party, the complainant had issued cheques to a sum of Rs.36,07,500/- for construction of the flat on the ground floor and another sum of Rs.37,30,182/- for construction on the 2^nd floor.  Thus, in total, she has paid a sum of Rs.73,37,682/-.  In the flat at 2^nd floor, the electrical works are still pending.  Further, the automatic motor switch has not been provided for water motor pump and the height of the water tank level is also very low.  Since the breadth of the sunshade is very narrow, rain water falls inside the house.  There are cracks on the wall.  Though all these defects were complained to the opposite party, he has not taken any steps to rectify the same.  Hence, the complainant sent a legal notice on 17.12.2016.  On 28.12.2016, the opposite party visited the flats along with the Engineer.  On 31.12.2016, common automatic motor switch was fixed and by providing a pressure motor, the water problem of the complainant was solved temporarily.  Since he has not rectified the water motor airlock and motor pump foot valve blockage, till date there is no proper water supply.  Therefore, the complainant has come forward with the present complaint for the relief stated supra, alleging deficiency of service.

 

2.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing a version, denying the allegations of the complainant.

 

3.  When the matter was taken up today, a memo has been filed by the counsel for the opposite party stating that the sole opposite party had died on 07.07.2018.  He has also produced a death certificate to that effect.  It was further submitted by the counsel that since the complaint has been filed against the opposite party in the individual capacity, nothing survives after the death of the opposite party.  The complainant also has not shown any interest to implead the legal heirs of the opposite party.  In these circumstances, we have no other alternative other than to dismiss the complaint. 

 

4.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as infructuous and accordingly dismissed.   

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                         R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                              PRESIDENT