State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Joseph Pandithurai,Madurai. vs The Managing Partner,Srimathi ... on 15 July, 2022
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
C.C.No.33/2017
FRIDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2022.
Date of complaint filed : 29.06.2017
Date of order pronounced :15.07.2022
Joseph Pandithurai,
S/o Baulraj,
III Floor II Flat (302),
Janakiram Apartment,
41-42 Ansarinagar 1st Street,
Mahaboobpalayam,
Madurai - 625 016. Complainant
-Vs-
1. Srimathi A.Senthil Lakshmi,
Managing Partner,
M/s. Thirumala Apartment,
Lakshmi Towers,
No.81, P.T.Rajan Road,
Bibikulam, Madurai - 625 002. 1st Opposite Party
2. Sri.T.Pandiarajan,
Partner,
M/s.Thirumala Apartment,
Lakshmi Towers,
No.81, P.T.Rajan Road,
Bibikulam, Madurai - 625 002. 2nd Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainant : Mr.J.Milton Arul Rajendran, Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite Parties-1&2 : Mr.K.Jegadeesan, Advocate.
2
This case coming before us for final hearing on 22.11.2021 and on perusing
the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for (1) to direct the opposite parties to pay 36% simple interest per annum of accumulated interest, the sum of Rs.25,75,800/, for the delayed period from April 2014 to July 2016 on Rs.31,80,000/-. (2) Direct the opposite parties to register the construction agreement at their own cost 1% stamp value of Rs.29,500/-. (3) Direct the opposite parties to refund the excessively collected amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with current bank rate of interest from the date of receipt by the opposite parties to the date of payment period. (4) Direct the opposite parties to hand over payment vouchers of service tax of Rs.1,00,000/- received from the complainant and hand over the underground drainage deposit receipt for Rs.5000/-. (5) Direct the opposite parties to cover the utility room grill work with transparent plastic board. (6) Direct the opposite parties to attend minor repairs pending from the date of occupation of the flat. (7) Direct the opposite parties to allot car parking space permanently space selected and intimated in April 2013 by the complainant to the opposite party-2 the space in ground floor of the complex. (8) Direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony. (9) And direct the opposite parties to pay cost of this proceeding.
3
2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant purchased an apartment residential flat III floor, II Flat (302) in Janakiram Apartment, 41-42 Ansarinagar 1st street, Maboobpalayam, Madurai, from M/s.Thirumala Apartment. In which the opposite parties are managing partner and partner respectively. The total cost of 2BK, 910 square feet super built up area flat is Rs.31,80,000/-. The cost is inclusive of UDS share of land 150 square feet, building structure and the rights of car parking space of 40 square feet. The complainant paid cash Rs.31,80,000/- with 80 % of this amount in March 2013 and 20 % of the amount in April and May 2013.
A per the construction agreement dated 21.11.2012 the opposite parties have agreed to deliver the possession of the flat to the complainant within 12 months from the month of payment. And if the buyer of the flat defaulted 36 % of interest per annum would be claimed by the opposite parties. The possession certificate and No due-cum final measurement certificate were handed over to the complainant only on 28.02.2017. The opposite parties have accepted the delayed delivery of possession of flat are liable for payment of compensation to the complainant. For the delayed period and the complainant has to pay heavy interest to his lenders, compensation for Rs. 31,80,000/- at the rate of 36 % per annum for 27 months period after the agreed period of 12 months should be paid to the complainant. The undivided share of land 150 square feet with its price value of Rs.2,25,000/- has been registered in the name of the complainant. The schedule C of the registered UDS contain only 150 square feet land and its cost Rs.2,25,000/- and the balance amount of building structure Rs.29,55,000. The rights of car parking space of 40 square feet area of building 4 structure, other connected details of construction agreement date of execution and payment details were not included in the UDS.
The opposite parties willfully have hidden the valid details thereby the UDS alone is not full property to the purchase value of Rs.31,80,000/-. When the complainant insist registered construction agreement the opposite parties quote many rules and fail to protect the asset value of the purchase value with valid documents either or statutory record for the complainant. The opposite parties had not discussed at the time of UDS registration.
The opposite parties have collected Rs.1,00,000/- towards service tax even after passing on 14 months from the date of receipt of cash. The opposite parties have not intimated the fact of deposit of service tax to the Government. No receipt for the deposit amount for underground deposit Rs.5,000/-. At the time of booking the opposite parties promised that flat cost Rs.31,80,000/- is meant for land of UDS, building structure and the car parking space and additional amount actual alone will be collected from the complainant for property tax, VST, water connection deposit and connection charge, underground drainage deposit and connection, III phase supply of EB, deposit, connection charge, UDS registration expenses. Contrary to the promises, the opposite parties demanded Rs.1,50,000/- threatened through a supervisor and employee of M/s.Thirumala Apartment. The complainant raised loan from his relative Rs.75,000/- was paid on 27.09.2016 the total expenditure payable to the E.B. and Madurai Municipal Corporation and registration charge of Rs.22,985/-. The expenditure of actual were only Rs.41,432/-. The complainant hard earned pension savings have 5 been unreasonably collected. The excess amount should be refunded with interest payable to the complainant for the actual date of receipt by opposite parties to the complainant to the date of payment by the opposite parties. The minor repairs reported on many occasions were not attended by the opposite parties. The works have been carried out by opposite parties with interior quality of inferior materials and with unskilled labourers.
In the common area is part and parcel of the apartment flat owners. After receiving cash for flat gave dual model undated sale deed was registered on 12.04.2013, the car parking rights have not been included by the opposite party in the registered deed. The opposite party willfully omitted the rights with ulterior motive. When enquired about the car parking issue with the opposite parties demanded Rs.2,00,000/- against earlier promises. Despite several complaints, requests in person and through registered post the opposite parties did not reply and response for all complaints. The car parking space of 40 sq.ft. is well within the registered UDS sale area 150 sq.ft. It is not an additional space. The possession certificate dated 01.08.2016 and was handed on 28.02.2017 and the keys were handed over only on 04.02.2016. On the date of occupation when the complainant raised issues with the opposite parties, he assured to cover the opening with transparent plastic board to the privacy. The problem is pending to cover the opening for the past 10 months. The carpet area of the flat III-F2 Flat 302 in which the complainant resides is only 610 sq.ft. including balcony. The carpet area is added 50% to 70% where there are club house, garage, swimming pool, garden and kids part, there is no other etc., facilities available 6 for the residents and flat owners. The stilted common area is rightful use of registered flat owners it cannot be sold as property. It can be used to park vehicles, two wheelers of relatives and friends of occupants coming to see them. The opposite parties have not given proper receipts of amount received. Apartment was constructed and completed in 2013. But, the second opposite party has collected vacant site tax for the period from 2013-2014, 2014-2015 from the complainant and deposited to Madurai Corporation.
Therefore the complainant prayed for, (1) to direct the opposite parties to pay 36% simple interest per annum of accumulated interest, the sum of Rs.25,75,800/-, for the delayed period from April 2014 to July 2016 on Rs.31,80,000/-.
(2) Direct the opposite parties to register the construction agreement at their own cost 1% stamp value of Rs.29,500/-.
(3) Direct the opposite parties to refund the excessively collected amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with current bank rate of interest from the date of receipt by the opposite parties to the date of payment period.
(4) Direct the opposite parties to hand over payment vouchers of service tax of Rs.1,00,000/- received from the complainant and hand over the underground drainage deposit receipt for Rs.5000/-.
(5) Direct the opposite parties to cover the utility room grill work with transparent plastic board.
(6) Direct the opposite parties to attend minor repairs pending from the date of occupation of the flat.
7
(7) Direct the opposite parties to allot car parking space permanently space selected and intimated in April 2013 by the complainant to the opposite party-2 the space in ground floor of the complex.
(8) Direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony.
(9) And direct the opposite parties to pay cost of this proceeding.
3. Written Version filed by the 2nd opposite party adopted by the first opposite party are as follows: The cost of the allotted flat to the complainant and the payment schedule are admitted as true and the rest of the averments with regard to car parking and so on are all denied as false and fictitious. The possession certificate and no due cum final measurement certificate are all handed over to the complainant after complete inspection made by the complainant and he has satisfied to the extent and on the very same day the certificate mentioned supra dated 01.08.2016 and 06.10.2016 respectively. The Government of Tamil Nadu passed an ordinance as "Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 18/2013" and on the base of the said Act, the Registration Department has passed a Circular vide No.16345/C2/2013 dated 28.10.2013. The compulsory registration of construction agreement is come into force from 01.10.2013. Hence this case will not come under the compulsory registration since the construction agreement took place on 21.11.2012, the payment of service tax is admitted as to construction agreement took place on 21.11.2012 and the 1st payment made by the complainant on 08.03.2013 to the tune of Rs.3,18,000/- and other payments as mentioned by the complainant respectively. Since from the 1st payment made by the 8 complainant, the opposite parties is liable to pay the service Tax for the amount received in the next succeeding English calendar month as levied by the Central Government. The complainant has paid the service tax only on 14.04.2016. Whereas the opposite parties has paid the service tax in the mode of collective payment received from the purchasers without fail. The opposite parties has paid to the competent authority for the underground deposit at the time of Plan approval stage itself and the proportionate amount of the each flat owners will be credited after assessment made by the competent authority and the same will be adjusted in their property tax accordingly and it can be evidenced through the portal of Madurai Corporation. The amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by two installments. No such car parking space was allotted to the complainant and the same was evidenced through construction agreement dated 21.12.2012. The additional deposits and connection charges which includes service, materials, labour cost, documentation charges, miscellaneous expenses, laying of pipe line, panel board, EB erection approval charges , Grill work for Balcony, door, wiring for Air Conditioners etc., the above all charges will come under the connection charges, installation charges etc., paid to the appropriate authorities and the workers. Hence the opposite parties have not received any additional amount as alleged in the complaint. The opposite parties even now ready to clear out if any defect is found out. But from the date of occupation, the complainant has not even paid any single paise towards the associations maintenance cost as per the construction agreement. The undated sale deed is merely a draft deed. Even in that draft sale deed also, nowhere mentioned the car parking. Since the complainant is the purchaser of 9 the flat not the car parking. The delay of handing over the possession to the complainant is caused due to the delay only on the part of the authorities. Since whenever a new multi storied Building is constructed more than 50 and above feet, the Builder has to get approval from the Electricity Department at Chennai, for which the opposite parties have applied on 23.07.2013 itself and their correspondence were made on 12.09.2013. In the meantime the Moulivakkam incident happened on 28.06.2014 and due to that there is a huge delay and subsequently the competent authorities delegated to Electrical Inspectorate, Madurai. Due to the policy change, once again the opposite parties have applied on 12.05.2015 before the competent authority Madurai and finally the competent authority, Madurai has approved the Electrical installations only on 02.11.2015. After the installation process is over, then the opposite parties have applied for the Electricity connection before the office of TNEB, and other development charges paid on 24.05.2016 and thereafter the connection were given to the apartment. The complainant has agreed as per the agreement and paid the amount as agreed towards the opposite parties. The assurance made by the opposite parties to cover the opening with transparent plastic board is nothing but created one. No specification was made either in the construction agreement dated 21.12.2012 or agreed to cover the opening with transparent plastic through any subsequent agreement. The allotted area to the complainant is 805 sq.ft. of Plinth area which includes 699 sq.ft of carpet area and 106 sq ft. of wall area and the common area such as staircase, lift, corridor are all comes around 105 sq.ft., which comes around 13 % and the same is very normal in apartment system.
10
No work was pending as alleged in the complaint. There is no question of any delay and the opposite parties have not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by this complainant. There is no specific clause/provision enumerated under the construction agreement in respect of compensation. The construction agreement cannot be registered as prayed by the complainant, since there is no such mechanism of registering the construction agreement in those period. Because, the compulsory of registration of construction agreement came in to force only from 01.10.2013. Hence the opposite parties are not liable to refund the excess amount as prayed in the complaint.
No other such allottees/purchasers have made any such complaint in respect of the entire system followed by the opposite parties in successful handing over the project. There is a huge economical crisis and the incident of Moulivakkam makes the builders to run from pillar to post for obtaining approval after satisfying the procedural laws and the subsequent amendment made by the Government. Even after complying all the procedures accordingly and handed over the flat to their satisfaction. Hence the complainant has come up with the vexatious petition only with intention to extract money after acknowledging the satisfactory possession of the allotted flat. Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed.
4. In this complaint the complainant examined himself as PW1 by filing proof affidavit on their side and Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 were marked on the side of complainant. The opposite parties examined themself by filing proof affidavit as RW1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B15 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
11
5. Point for consideration is:
Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in his complaint?
6. Point: The complainant purchased an apartment of residential flat III floor, II Flat (302) in Janakiram Apartment, 41-42 from M/s.Thirumala Apartment. In which the opposite parties are the Managing partner and partner. The cost of the apartment is Rs.31,80,000/-. The complainant alleged in his complaint the following points, (1) The cost of Rs.31,80,000/- is inclusive of undivided share of land 150 sq.ft. and right of car parking space of 40 sq.ft.
(2) The opposite parties are liable for payment of compensation for the delayed in delivery of possession.
(3) The compensation is to be fixed at the rate of interest 36% per annum for 27 months after agreed period of 12 months since the complainant has to pay heavy interest to his lenders.
(4) The opposite parties willfully have hided the valid details thereby the undivided share alone is not property to the purchase value of Rs.31,80,000/- the complainant insist the registration of construction agreement.
(5) The opposite parties have collected Rs.1,00,000/- towards service tax and have not intimated the fact of deposit to the Government.
(6) No receipt for the deposit of Rs.5000/- for underground drainage deposit. (7) At the time of booking in March 2013 the opposite parties promised the flat cost of Rs.31,80,000/- is meant for land of undivided share, building structure and the car parking space. Contrary to the promise he demanded Rs.1,50,000/-. but, the actual 12 expenditure for VST, service tax, property tax, drainage connection charges, water deposit, water tax, EB metre caution deposit, development charge, surcharge UGD deposit, registration charges were only Rs.41,432/-. Excessively collected amount of Rs.1,00,000/- should be refunded with interest. All the expenses should made by the opposite parties out of their profit.
(8) Leakage in toilet pipe line connection, pipe from the date of occupation is not attended. The works have been carried out with inferior materials and with unskilled labourers.
(9) Car parking in the common area is a part and parcel of the apartment. The complainant selected the location of car parking and intimated. But, the car parking rights have not been included by the second opposite party in the registered deed and willfully omitted with ulterior motive and demanded further Rs.2,00,000/- against the earlier promised.
(10) The car parking of space of 40 sq.ft is well within the registered UDS sale area of 150 sq.ft. It is not an additional space. If additional space is calculated there is no enough area for all residents in the apartment. The amount was paid for car parking the opposite parties have written car parking in model undated, unregistered deed but willfully not included in the registered deed. The complainant flat is very close to the private house where Muslim family is living. The opposite parties assured to cover the opening with transparent plastic board. The stilted common area cannot be sold as property it can be used to park vehicles. The opposite parties sold the common area at the sufferings of flat owners and residents to cause quarrel among them. 13
7. The complainant prayed the following reliefs, (1) To direct the opposite parties to pay 36% simple interest per annum of the accumulated interest amount of Rs.25,75,800/- for the delayed period.
(2) Direct the opposite parties to register the construction agreement their own cost of to pay stamp value of 1% registration fees and with the documents writer expenses for the building construction cost.
(3) Direct the opposite parties to refund the excess amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with current value of bank rate of interest from the date of receipt.
(4) Direct the opposite parties to hand over the payment vouchers. (5) Direct the opposite parties to cover the utility grill work with transparent plastic board.
(6) Direct the opposite parties to attend the minor repairs.
(7) Direct the opposite parties to allot car parking space permanently selected and intimated in April 2013 by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. The space in ground floor of the complex.
(8) Direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony.
(9) And direct the opposite parties to pay cost of this proceeding.
8. It is the burden upon the complainant to prove the allegations set out in his complaint. The documents marked by the complainant himself are not support the case of the complainant. As per the terms arrived between the parties at the time of executing construction agreement the allotment of car parking area was mentioned only 14 "optional". The complainant/allotee/purchaser agreed to purchase the "E" schedule undivided share of land from out of "D" schedule property from the promoter vide separate sale document. "E" schedule mentioned as Land agreed to purchase by the allotee/purchaser vide separate sale deed from the promoter 150 sq.ft. of undivided share of land described in schedule "D". In the "G" schedule is specifications No.16 is noted covered car parking - "optional".
9. The complainant raised a plea that at the time of booking in March 2013 the opposite parties promised the flat cost of Rs.31,80,000/- is meant for land UDS building structure and car parking space. But, the claim is against the contents of the document marked on both sides. The above fact which could be in the personal knowledge of the complainant it could be proved by leading some evidences of those facts. The complainant failed to adduced any evidence to prove the fact that the opposite parties promised the flat cost of Rs.31,80,000/- is including the car parking space. Therefore, the contention raised by the complainant is not sustainable as per the terms of constructions agreement entered between the parties.
10. Moreover, the counsel for the opposite parties raised a contention that there is no such terms in the agreement or the opposite parties not promised as stated by the complainant. Usually allotment of car parking area to any purchasers the allotment of car parking will be specified in the construction agreement itself. No such allotment was made in the sale agreement Ex.B3 entered between the complainant and the second opposite party nor to prove the same. The opposite parties marked Ex.B4 & B5 allotment for car parking area for other purchasers in the same apartment residential 15 are marked. Those documents proved there is some different between the allotment residential quarters with some terms either including car parking area as a separately or without car parking area mentioned as optional. Therefore, the prayer of the complainant allotment of separate car parking area could not be sustained.
11. Another contention raised by the complainant is delay in handing over the possession of the apartment. The opposite parties explained the changing of Government norms and policy.
12. The counsel for the opposite parties would contend that the construction agreement was executed after preparing the draft agreement Ex.B1. They entered into construction agreement on 21.11.2012 the registration of the agreement would not compulsory during that period. The compulsory registration of construction agreement was effect from 01.10.2013 as such the complainant's prayer with regard to registration of construction agreement is not maintainable it will not comes under the compulsory registration before the competent authority.
13. As per the terms of construction agreement car parking area is specified as "optional" for the complainant. The complainant has made belated initial payment of 10% of cost of Rs.3,18,000/- only on 08.03.2013 instead of paying on 21.11.2012.
14. Usually, when allot of car parking area to any purchasers the allotment of car parking will be specified in the construction and as well as in the sale agreement. The complainant satisfied with the legal opinion in respect of the title related to UDS land and entered into a registered sale deed through Ex.A5. The original document related to construction agreement Ex.A2, sale agreement. Ex.B3 the legal opinion with set of 16 Parent documents were received by the complainant through Ex.B6. The opposite parties have to pay service tax in respect of the allotted flat to the every allotee. The same condition was stipulated in "Clause 12 of the construction agreement" our firm has paid the sales tax of Rs.50,880/- and Rs.12,720/- on 07.05.2013 and 24.10.2013 respectively vide challans on various dates. For the complainant payment made on various dates totally to the tune of Rs.25,44,000/- in the month of March 2013 and for the month of April and May 2013 totally to the tune of Rs.6,36,000/- respectively before the competent authority through Ex.B10, B11. But, the complainant has not paid the sales tax payment of Rs.63,600/- paid by the opposite party on behalf of the complainant till date. There is a delay in sanctioning of electricity connection by the electricity department after fulfilling the requisite condition it was complied under Ex.B12. On 28.06.2014 at Chennai the Government norms and systems and requisite papers to be handed over by the builders to the competent authorities are totally changed. Hence, the opposite parties firm request application for obtaining electricity connection was stagnant before the competent authority either to approve or to reject. Since, for the reason of change in Government policy. After various hurdle faced by the opposite parties at last it was approved to install electricity to the apartment on 18.04.2016. The delay in obtaining electricity connection is caused only due to the change of Government Policy Norms on the occurrence of the Maulivakkam incident.
15. The opposite parties handed over the possession in 2016 while possession certificate Ex.B14 is ready for occupation. Having taken over the possession, the complainant has attested the signature in the certificate. The opposite parties issued No 17 Due Cum Final Measurement Certificate and the same was received by the complainant through Ex.B15. Having the Government norms changed, the competent authorities of respective departments stand abate and there is no requisite the approval within proper time. Hence, there is no delay on the part of the opposite parties in handing over of possession relate to the respective flat, the delay caused due to the change of Government Norms and Policy, for sanctioning electricity supply and other rules after the incident of collapsing Moulivakkam building. As per the construction agreement entered on 21.11.2012 the opposite parties agreed to hand over the possession of the flat within the period of 12 months but, they have not handed over the possession. On 28.02.2017 the complainant claims compensation for the delay of 27 months. No terms was arrived between the parties in the construction agreement for the delayed possession. The complainant claims that as per the terms of building agreement when the buyer made his to pay 36% penalty for default by the buyer. The builders for his made quiet silent and the same on the part of delay in delivering the possession of flat under agreement item No.5 and claimed compensation only as per the latest Government orders but, it was not produced by the complainant. At the same time, he admits they have not arrived any terms at the time of entered into building agreement for the payment of compensation for the delayed possession. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get compensation under the terms of agreement.
16. The another contention raised by the complainant is the construction agreement was not registered under the Registration Act. Whereas the counsel for the opposite parties stated that the above agreement did not comes under the category of 18 compulsory registry the document. The additional document marked on the side of the complainant Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration dated 28.10.2013 marked as Ex.A24 relate itself explained point (iii) "If the construction agreement has not been registered and if the same does not require to be compulsory registered for the reason that it had been executed prior to 01.10.2013, the copy of the evidences scrutinized shall be preserved in the office for the period of three years". The construction agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties was executed on 21.11.2012 prior to the date of Circular 01.10.2013. Therefore, the agreement not comes under the category of compulsory registerable.
17. The another contention raised by the complainant is the opposite parties collected excess amount towards service tax, underground drainage deposit, water connection deposit, III phase supply of electricity supply, EB deposit, UDS registration expenses contrary to the promises. The complainant claims the refund of amount with interest.
18. Whereas the counsel for the opposite parties produced marked Ex.B6 to Ex.B13 which are the documents proved the payment of service tax, sales tax, and deposit for electricity connection. The above documents are proved the collection of the amount by the opposite parties only for the payment of taxes. In addition the opposite parties raised a contention that the complainant had paid the initial deposit amount with a delay they have to pay the sales tax for the payment. The complainant himself liable to pay interest for the payment of sales tax was paid by the opposite party. When the 19 opposite party able to prove the collection of amount for the required payment the complainant is not entitled to claim any refund from the opposite parties.
19. The another contention raised by the complainant is leakage in toilet pipeline connection. The pipelines from the date of occupation are not attended. The works have been carried out interior materials and with unskilled labourers. But, the complainant has not taken any steps to prove those allegations. Whereas, the opposite parties raised a contention that the grill works and minor repairs only comes under the category of additional work they have handed over the possession to the complainant. The complainant also received the possession with satisfaction and put his signature in the possession certificate. They have accepted the possession and after a long gap the complainant has come up with false allegations.
20. Under the terms of building agreement No.11: "If the allottee/purchaser requires any additional work/facilities in his/her flat, he/she made may make a request to the promoters/builders to do such work. The allottee/purchaser shall bear and pay in advance the cost of all such additional work/facilities that may be carried out on his request which is not covered in the specifications under the building agreement". The complainant could raise the request only on payment in advance for additional work. The complainant has not stated in his complaint that he is ready to pay for the additional work. Without payment for additional work the complainant could not raised allegations against the terms of the agreement.
20
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of - DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited -Vs- D.S.Dhanda Etc., and another one citation the Supreme Court -in the case of - DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited -Vs- Sudesh Goyal. As clearly observed that when the contract/agreement has been signed by the builder and the allottee both of them are bound by the terms of the agreement and from this aspect the allottee is only entitled to get the compensation as mentioned in the agreement. The (PI 2021 CPJ 72 NCDRC) - Pawan Gupta -Vs- Experion Developers Private Limited (at Page No.130) and also held in the above decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed "it is the difficult to compensate the complainant by ordering interest on the amount paid by complainant".
22. When the complainant is not able to prove the allegations set out in the complaint and the terms of agreement he is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties and answered accordingly for the point for consideration.
23. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 15th day of July 2022.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
List of documents marked on the side of the complainant
Ex.A1 (a) 08.03.2013 R.T.No.43
(b) 11.03.2013 R.T.No.44
(c) 12.03.2013 R.T.No.45
21
(d) 13.03.2013 R.T.No.46
(e) 16.03.2013 R.T.No.47
(f) 18.03.2013 R.T.No.48
(g) 12.04.2013 R.T.No.49
(h) 06.05.2013 R.T.No.50
(i) 20.05.2013 R.T.No.51
Ex.A2 21.11.2012 Construction Agreement 14 Pages
Ex.A3 01.08.2016 Possession Certificate
Ex.A4 06.10.2016 No due cum final measurement certificate.
Ex.A5 12.04.2013 UDS registered sale deed No.1375 dated 12.04.2013
Ex.A6 08.12.2016 Complainant registered letter
Ex.A7 18.01.2017 Complainant RPAD letter
Ex.A8 27.03.2017 Complainant RPAD letter
Ex.A9 22.04.2017 [email protected]
Ex.A10 02.05.2017 Complainant RPAD letter
Ex.A11 18.05.2017 Opposite party-2 reply notice
Ex.A12 14.04.2016 Cash receipt of opposite party-2 for service tax
Ex.A13 10.12.2016 Opposite party-1 receipt and payment Madurai Municipal
Corporation.
Ex.A14 27.09.2016 Opposite party receipt
Ex.A15 06.10.2016 UDS registration expenses cash receipt by opposite party-2
Ex.A16 March 2013 Car Parking writing in the model sale deed
Panguni Nandana
Year
Ex.A17 13 March 2013 Sale Agreement deed
19/Masi/nandana
22
Ex.A18 Advertisement Bit Notice
Bit notice
Ex.A19 10.12.2016 Flat keys making over letter by opposite party-1
Ex.A20 (a) 28.07.2009 Assessment No.49648 Property tax receipt -2009-2010
(b) 28.07.2009 Assessment No.49648
(c) 22.07.2010 Water charges 2009-23010 plan approval
(d) 03.07.2014 VST Tax 2013-2014
(e) 19.02.2015 VST Tax 2014-2015
(f) 01.04.2015 VST Tax 2014-2015
Ex.A21 31.08.2015 Madurai Municipal Corporation Property tax assessment
Order
Ex.A22 16.09.2015 Madurai Municipal Corporation Property tax receipt
2015-2016
Ex.A23 --- Typical floor plan diagram
Ex.A24 28.10.2013 Inspector General of Registration Chennai Circular
No.16345/02/c2/2013.
List of documents marked on the side of opposite parties.
Ex B1 15.11.2012 Draft Construction agreement
Ex B2 21.11.2012 Construction agreement
Ex B3 13.03.2013 Sale Agreement
Ex B4 15.02.2012 Construction agreement
Ex B5 05.03.2012 Sale deed
Ex B6 29.04.2013 Acknowledgement of receipt of the Original documents
Ex B7 08.05.2013 Service Tax, Challan No.50166
Ex B8 23.10.2013 Service Tax, Challan No.50011
Ex B9 --- UGD Deposit
Ex B10 07.05.2013 Sale Tax, Challan No.450100072810318655070513
Ex B11 24.10.2013 Sale Tax, Challan No.450100072810482624241013
Ex B12 12.09.2013 The Electricity Department, Chennai sent a letter,
Letter No.19264/CEIG/D5/2013
23
Ex B13 24.05.2016 Deposit amount before the Electricity Department Receipt No.1228118.
Ex B14 01.08.2016 Possession Certificate Ex B15 06.10.2016 No due Cum Final Measurement Certificate.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.