State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Macro Marvel Projects ... vs President,Marvel Parambariayam ... on 16 August, 2010
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Tmt. Vasugi Ramanan, M.A.,B.L., MEMBER I Thiru S. Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II R.P.NO.11/2010 (Against order in CMP.NO.295/2009 IN CC.No.104/2009 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore) DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF AUGUST 2010 M/s. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd., Coimbatore Project Office 633, V.K.K. Menon Road New Sidhapudur Coimbatore- 641 035 Petitioner /2nd Opposite party Vs. 1.
President Marvel Parambariayam Residents Welfare Association 74, Marvel Parambariyam Kalapatti Road, Combatore Respondent/ Complainant
2. Director M/s. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd., Glenden Place 813, Poonamallee High Road Chennai 600 010 Respondent/ 1st opposite party This petition is filed to set aside the order in CMP.295/2009 IN COP No.104/2008 dt.4.12.2009.
This petition coming on before us for hearing today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, this commission made the following order:
Counsel for Petitioner: M/s. N. Sivakumar, Advocate Counsel for Respondent: M/s. Kumaradevan, Advocate M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court)
1. The complainant, leveling deficiencies against the builder/opposite parties, has filed a case before the District Forum in CC No.104/2009, seeking certain reliefs.
2. In that case, in order to note down the physical features and to quantify the damage also, the complainant moved the application, for the appointment of a commissioner, which was conceded by the District Forum, by the order dt.26.11.2009, which is impugned in this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, would submit that the building was constructed in the year 2005, possession was handed over in 2005 itself, and therefore at this distance of time, if any damage had been caused to the building, it might be due to wear and tear, or by natural cause, which will not prove the actual damage claimed by the complainant, and this being the position, by the appointment of commissioner, and the commissioner inspecting the property, will not serve any purpose, which was not properly considered by the District Forum, which is opposed.
4. When the commissioner inspects the property, at this distance of time, after four years or so, the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, may be true. That does not mean, there may not be any damage, caused originally by the substandard materials or something like that, on which basis, probably deficiency would have been alleged. If at all the opposite parties/ builder, can give memo of instructions to the commissioner, to note down the physical features, nature of damage, its age, etc., in order to ascertain whether that would have been caused by the deficiency alleged, or otherwise, naturally or due to wear and tear etc. In that case, the commissioner certainly will take in to account, and note the points on that basis. On the other hand, if really due to the deficiency of the builder, there were damages, that should not be deprived of, denying the appointment of commissioner, and in this view, we do not find any error in appointing commissioner, to inspect the property, and note down the physical features and damages, as well as to assess the quantum of damage.
5. In the result the Revision Petition is dismissed.
Revision Petitioner is directed to give memo of instructions, to the commissioner, to note down the physical features damages as they desire, and the commissioner shall take into account and incorporate the nature of damage, age etc., which will be considered by the District Forum, at the time of final disposal of the case. There will be no order as to cost.
S.SAMBANDAM VASUGI RAMANAN M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj-FB/RP orders