M/.S. S.P.K. Real Estate, C.H.B. ... vs Padam Bahadur,Veerappa Chettair ... on 31 October, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/.S. S.P.K. Real Estate, C.H.B. ... vs Padam Bahadur,Veerappa Chettair ... on 31 October, 2011

  
 
 
 
 
 
 BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
  
 
 
 







 



 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI 

 

  

 

Present
Hon'ble Thiru Justice M.
THANIKACHALAM  PRESIDENT 

 

  Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBER 

 

  

 

  

 

 FAs.150/2010,
151/2010, 152/2010, 153/2010 & F.A.154/2010 

 

   

 

   

 

  

 

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF
OCTOBER 2011 

 

  

 

 COMMON ORDER

F.A.150/2010

(Against the order in C.C.31/2008 on the file of DCDRC, Coimbatore)

1. M/.s. S.P.K. Real Estate, | Appellants / Opposite Parties Door No.10, Street No.8, | C.H.B. Colony, Thiruchengode 637 211, | Rep. by its Prop.

P.Chengodan and | A.S. Angammal. | |

2. C.K. Dhandapani, | No.5, Ranganathapuram, | 2nd Street, Kongu Nagar Main Road, | Tiruppur 641

: M/s.V.Raghavachari, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Mr.P.N. Deendayal, Advocate.

F.A.151/2010

(Against the order in C.C.234/2007 on the file of DCDRC, Coimbatore)

1. M/.s. S.P.K. Real Estate, | Appellants / Opposite Parties Door No.10, Street No.8, | C.H.B. Colony, Thiruchengode 637 211, | Rep. by its Prop.

P.Chengodan and | A.S. Angammal. |

2. C.K. Dhandapani, | No.5, Ranganathapuram, | 2nd Street, Kongu Nagar Main Road, | Tiruppur 641

Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Mr.P.N. Deendayal, Advocate.

F.A.152/2010

(Against the order in C.C.233/2007 on the file of DCDRC, Coimbatore)

1. M/.s. S.P.K. Real Estate, | Appellants / Opposite Parties Door No.10, Street No.8, | C.H.B. Colony, Thiruchengode 637 211, | Rep. by its Prop.

P.Chengodan and | A.S. Angammal. | |

2. C.K. Dhandapani, | No.5, Ranganathapuram, | 2nd Street, Kongu Nagar Main Road, | Tiruppur 641

: M/s.V.Raghavachari, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Mr.P.N. Deendayal, Advocate.

F.A.153/2010

(Against the order in C.C.230/2007 on the file of DCDRC, Coimbatore)

1. M/.s. S.P.K. Real Estate, | Appellants / Opposite Parties Door No.10, Street No.8, | C.H.B. Colony, Thiruchengode 637 211, | Rep. by its Prop.

P.Chengodan and | A.S. Angammal. |

2. C.K. Dhandapani, | No.5, Ranganathapuram, | 2nd Street, Kongu Nagar Main Road, | Tiruppur 641

: M/s.V.Raghavachari, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Mr.P.N. Deendayal, Advocate.

F.A.154/2010

(Against the order in C.C.126/2007 on the file of DCDRC, Coimbatore)

1. M/.s. S.P.K. Real Estate, | Appellants / Opposite Parties Door No.10, Street No.8, | C.H.B. Colony, Thiruchengode 637 211, | Rep. by its Prop.

P.Chengodan and | A.S. Angammal. | |

2. C.K. Dhandapani, | No.5, Ranganathapuram, | 2nd Street, Kongu Nagar Main Road, | Tiruppur 641

Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Mr.P.N. Deendayal, Advocate.

This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 13.10.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on eitherside and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order:

M. THANIKACHALAM J. PRESIDENT

1. The opposite parties in C.C.31/2008, 234/2007, 233/2007, 230/2007 and 126/2007 are the appellants in F.A.Nos.150/2010 to 154/2010 respectively.

2. The parties are referred in this order as arrayed in the respective complaints.

3. This order shall dispose all the appeals.

Common facts [in all the cases]:

4. The first appellant/opposite party was promoting real estate in Coimbatore and Erode Districts. On seeing the advertisement made by the first opposite party, the complainants approached the first opposite party, through the authorized agent-second opposite party, for the purchase of plots, investing the amounts, as per the scheduled shown hereunder by each complainants.

Sl.No. Complainants Name C.C.No. F.A. No. Amount paid by the complainant Compensation claimed

01. Padam Bahadur 31/2008 150/2010 Rs.30,000/-

Rs.15,000/-

02. Mrs.M.Shakunthala 234/2007 151/2010 Rs.60,000/-

Rs.30,000/-

03. R. Jayanthi 233/2007 152/2010 Rs.30,000/-

Rs.15,000/-

04. V. Chandrakala 230/2007 153/2007 Rs.30,000/-

Rs.15,000/-

05. Tmt. Andal 126/2007 154/2010 Rs.1,20,000/-

Rs.60,000/-

5. It was announced that the allotment of the house site will be made only by lot system. Some of the investors were allotted the house site and the complainants were not allotted the house site, near Kuppandampalayam and it was represented, house site allotted will be made in Valayapalayam, Naduvancherry, Chinneripalayam Village, which are away from Kuppandampalayam Village, for which, the complainants have invested the amounts. For the non-allotment of the house site, they have protested, but the opposite parties having received the money, had practiced unfair trade practice, committing deficiency of service, not only failed to return the amounts, but also failed to allot the site, in the area published, which should be construed as unfair trade practice. Thus alleging deficiency, complainants have filed separate cases, not only for the return of the amount deposited by them with interest, but also for damages as indicated in the table above.

6. The opposite parties, admitting the promotion of developed house site, as well as in a way admitting the payments made by the complainants also, though it is said belatedly, resisted the cases inter alia contending, that as per the advertisement, the properties developed includes not only the properties situated at Kuppandampalayam, it includes Naduvacherry sites also, that the complainants or their Agent have not paid the amount directly to the first opposite party, that when the lot was conducted at the gala draw, sites were allotted, but the complainants refused to register the site, that if the complainants are not satisfied about the sites allotted, they will be shown some other places and no amounts will be refunded, that since they have not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service and the complainant is also not a consumer, the complaints are not maintainable, praying for the dismissal of the complaints, denying other averments also.

7. The District Forum considering the rival contentions of the parties as well as the Proof Affidavits filed on behalf of the respective complainants and opposite parties, came to the conclusion, that the opposite parties have committed not only unfair trade practice, but also committed deficiency in service. It has also given a finding, that the Padam Bahadur - complainant in C.C.31/2008 has not acted as Agent and therefore, the absence of request through Padam Bahadur cannot be described, as reasonable excuse for non-return of the amount and in this view, the opposite parties having collected amounts from number of persons, though they had minimum place to be allotted, that should be construed as unfair trade practice, on that basis, in each cases, directions were issued to refund the amount paid by each complainant, with interest along with compensation, as per the common order dated 06.03.2008, which are challenged separately, by the opposite parties.

8. In view of the common order passed by the District Forum, all the appeals are taken together and this order shall dispose all the appeals also.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend, that even as per the terms and conditions available in Ex.A1, amount should be paid within due date, not paid in this case, which was not properly appreciated by the District Forum. A further submission was made, that as per Ex.A1, Kuppandampalayam will includes Valayapalayam, Naduvancherry, Chinneripalayam Village where the appellants had promoted and developed house sites and the allotment offer therein cannot be faulted, as incorrectly did by the District Forum. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, as seen from the Memorandum of Appeal also, the complainants refused to register the allotted place and if at all that can be decided by the Civil Court. The above submissions are opposed by the respondents/complainants.

10. As seen from the Written Version, the amounts deposited by each complainants, is not very much in dispute though an attempt was made to say that there was belated payment. Assuming so, since belated payment was also accepted, then as agreed, the opposite parties should have allotted the house site. As seen from Ex.A1, S.P.K. Nagar developed, notified for sale was only at Kuppandampalayam, Tiruppur and we do not find other villages are included such as Valayapalayam, Naduvancherry and Chinneripalayam. Therefore, the attempted allotment of house site, elsewhere instead of Kuppandampalayam, Tiruppur should be construed, as unfair trade practice, probably considering the hamlet, omitting the village, thereby in a way cheating the common people. In this view, the District Forum has held, that the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice, which finding is acceptable to us. The payments as evidenced by the receipts issued by S.P.K. Real Estate (Ex.A2) in each cases, is also not in dispute. Before us also, the amount paid or deposited by each complainants, are not challenged. For the reasons best known to the opposite parties, though it is a lot system, they were unable to allot the desired house site to the complainants and in this view, they are entitled to refund of the amount, though the publication notice would say, amount cannot be refunded. If that is to be accepted, the allotment should be within the village published, which is not so. Though an attempt was made to say, that the complainants failed to register the documents, as per the allotment, we are unable to find any materials, to prove the same. The District Forum considering all these facts, as well as construing the opposite parties are the service providers, in the sense collected amount, developing site, selling it to the parties and holding that the complainants had availed the service of the opposite parties for consideration, has correctly held, that the complaints are maintainable and each complainant is entitled to the amount deposited with interest. Admittedly, the amount paid was with the opposite parties and they had the benefits. Therefore, a reasonable interest alone is ordered, which will take care of the compensation also, and in this view, we are declined to grant separate amount as compensation. For the above reasons, all the appeals are to be allowed in part ,in order to set aside the compensation part alone, confirming the rest of the order.

11. In the result, all the appeals are allowed, in part, and the order of the District Forum in C.C.31/2008, 234/2007, 233/2007, 230/2007 and 126/2007 are modified, setting aside the compensation ordered alone, in each case, confirming the rest of the order as such. No order as to cost in these appeals.

J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/.S. S.P.K. Real Estate, C.H.B. ... vs Padam Bahadur,Veerappa Chettair ... on 31 October, 2011