State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P.N.Haridas vs Ambojini Properties Developers Pvt Ltd on 7 August, 2023
1
Date of filing : 03.04.2018.
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: Hon'ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT
Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL : MEMBER
C.C.No.69 of 2018
Monday, the 7th day of August 2023
P.N. Haridas
S/o. Sri P.K. Karunakara Panicker
Neelkanth Gardens
Tulip 603
Mumbai - 400 088. .. Complainant
- Vs -
Ambojini Property Developers
Private Limited
(A Group Company of Real Value
Promoters Private Limited)
"Amarasri", No.455 Anna Salai
Teynampet, Chennai -600 018
Rep. by its Managing Director .. Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. V. Balaji
Counsel for the Opposite party : M/s. A. Palaniappan
2
This Complaint has come before us for final hearing today,
on 07.08.2023 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for
the complainant and perusing the materials on record, this
Commission passes the following:-
ORDER
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court] This complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Sections 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for the following directions to the opposite party:
1. To refund the sum of Rs.31,66,966 /- paid by the complainant to the opposite party towards purchase of the residential apartment 8-F, 8th Floor, Block No.2, Real Value Peace and Prosperity, Tharamani, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai, together with interest thereon at 18% p.a from the date of complaint;
2. To pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages on account of the mental agony and trauma undergone by the complainant; and
3. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the complaint. 3
2. In brief, the case of the complainant as projected in the Complaint is as follows:
The opposite party was developing a residential flat complex named "Real Value Peace and Prosperity" in Taramani, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. The project was commenced by the opposite party in the year 2013. On seeing the advertisement given by the opposite party, the complainant met the officers of the opposite party and after negotiations, decided to purchase the residential Apartment No.8-F on the 8th floor, in Block No.2, with the built up area originally specified as 1305 sq.ft and subsequently modified as 1430 sq.ft., for a price of Rs.6718/- per sq.ft. The total cost of the apartment was fixed at Rs.96,06,740/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 02.09.2013 and booked the apartment. The opposite party has not executed the Builder's Agreement in favour of the complainant till the date of filing of the complaint, which itself amounts to deficiency in service. The proposed period of completion of the project in all aspects, according to the opposite party and handing over was three years i.e., September 2016. From the day of inception, there was enormous delay on the side of the opposite party. Although the opposite party informed the complainant vide letter dated 4 10.02.2014 that they had applied for planning permit from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, there was absolutely no progress on the site, for over two years. Frequent enquiries by the complainant regarding the non-commencement and status of the project were answered by the opposite parties giving various reasons. Ultimately, only in the middle of the year 2015, the foundation work commenced and immediately thereafter the opposite party started demanding the first stage payment of 15% on the value of the apartment. The complainant made the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of a cheque on 05.09.2015, with the fond hope that the opposite party would proceed with the work and complete the project. The complainant also made two further stage payments of Rs.10,00,000/- on 06.01.2016 and a sum of Rs.6,66,966/- on 25.01.2016. Thus, the complainant effected a total payment of Rs.31,66,966/-. The various e-mails exchanged between the opposite party and the complainant in this regard would evidence the said payments, besides the receipts issued by the opposite party. Thereafter, as there was no substantial progress on site and the pace of the work was very slow and totally unsatisfactory, the complainant after interactions with the representatives of the opposite party, issued an email dated 5 28.06.2016 stating that even after three years there is no progress of work and that he had to stay in a rental apartment paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards rent and hence sought for cancellation of the booking and refund of the entire amount paid by him, with interest and penalty. The complainant being a senior citizen suffering from various age related ailments, underwent immense sufferings due to the unreasonable delay and was put to great mental agony and trauma. Hence, the complainant issued a notice to the opposite party on 09.12.2017 calling upon the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.31,66,966/- together with interest at 18% p.a. and Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages.
Though the said notice was received by the opposite party on 15.12.2017, there was no response from the opposite party. Hence, the complainant had filed the complaint against the opposite party, for the reliefs stated supra.
3. Resisting the said complaint, the opposite party had filed a version stating that the opposite party is a reputed developer, developing real properties including residential, commercial and software parks in the city of Chennai & acclaimed goodwill from their customers for the past 20 years. The 6 complainant booked the Apartment No.8-F, Block No.2 in 'Peace and Prosperity' project at Taramani. The total cost of the apartment is Rs.96,06,740/-. On 02.09.2013, the complainant gave a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance for booking the apartment, after going through the terms and conditions of the Booking Form. The complainant by paying the advance amount had blocked the apartment and restricted the opposite party from selling the same to any other persons. The complainant is well aware of the entire cost of the apartment, which is duly mentioned in the Booking Form and the complainant had duly agreed to the said terms and conditions. The opposite party had duly communicated to the complainant by various communications, regarding every stage of construction of the complainant's flat. The opposite party always duly follow the rules and regulations and had made all the statutory payments to the Government Authorities that were to be complied before construction of a sky scraper. After the incident at Mugalivakkam, the sanctioning authorities were very vigilant in processing and approving the flats. The complainant was also informed that the Planning Permit has been obtained from CMDA and the advice amount has also been paid. The payments that were received from the flat purchasers were 7 duly utilised towards construction of the flats. There is no delay in putting up the construction. As and when the sanctioning authority gives the sanction, the opposite party had duly proceeded with the construction work as per the plan, without any delay. Thus, the opposite party denied the allegation of deficiency in service and sought to dismiss the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant along with proof affidavit, has filed 20 documents and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A20. On the side of the opposite party neither proof affidavit nor any documents were filed.
5. There is no representation for the opposite party. Heard the submission made by the counsel for the complainant and we have carefully gone through the entire material placed on record.
6. It is submitted by the counsel for the complainant that even after several years, till date, the apartment has not been handed over to the complainant. Hence, the complaint has been filed seeking for refund of the amount paid by the complainant 8 along with compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings. On perusal of the version, we find that there is no answer for the question raised by the complainant, as to when the flat would be handed over. A clear reading of the version filed by the opposite party would show that the opposite party was not ready to hand over the flat to the complainant. Hence, there is no impediment for this Commission in ordering the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.31,66,966/- paid by the complainant along with 9% interest, from the date of payment made by the complainant and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost.
7. In the result, the Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.31,66,966/- paid by the complainant along with 9% interest, from the date of payment made by the complainant and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost.
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R.SUBBIAH, J.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
9
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT Sl.No. Date Description of Documents Ex.A1 02.09.2013 Booking Form Ex.A2 02.09.2013 Receipt for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.A3 02.09.2013 Receipt for Rs.3,00,000/- Ex.A4 10.02.2014 Letter from the opposite party Ex.A5 27.05.2015 E-mail from the opposite party Ex.A6 08.07.2015 E-mail from the opposite party Ex.A7 05.09.2015 Receipt for Rs.9,92,011/- Ex.A8 12.11.2015 E-mail from the opposite party Ex.A9 18.11.2015 E-mail from the opposite party Ex.A10 25.12.2015 E-mail from the opposite party Ex.A11 06.01.2016 Receipt for Rs.3,00,000/- Ex.A12 06.01.2016 Receipt for Rs.6,00,000/- Ex.A13 06.01.2016 Receipt for Rs.69,355/- Ex.A14 06.01.2016 Receipt for Rs.30,645/- Ex.A15 25.01.2016 Receipt for Rs.6,92,966/- Ex.A16 27.06.2016 E-mail from the complainant Ex.A17 30.06.2016 E-mail from the complainant 10 Ex.A18 19.07.2016 Reply mail by the opposite party Ex.A19 09.12.2017 Advocate Notice Ex.A20 31.12.2017 Postal Track Report LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
- Nil -
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R.SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Index : Yes/ No
AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/August/2023