State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chandrasekar Apartments Welfare ... vs 1. C. Janakiraman,No.4-228, ... on 28 July, 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.A.K. Annamalai, M.A., B.L., M.Phil., JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MEMBER F.A.418/2010 [Against order in C.C.140/2009 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore] DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2011 Chandrasekar Apartments Welfare Society, | Appellant / Complainant Rep. by its Secretary S. Paramesh, | No.4-228, Sathyamurthy Road, | Ram Nagar, | Coimbatore 641 009. | Vs.
1. C. Janakiraman, | Respondents/Opposite Parties
2. C. Ramanathan, |
3. C. Subramaniam, |
4. C. Ravichandran, | Chandrasekar Apartments, | No.4-228, Sathyamurthy Road, | Ram Nagar, | Coimbatore 641 009. | This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.07.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order, of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellant /Complainant : M/s.Sarvabhuman Associates, Advocate. Counsel for the Respts/Ops :
Mr.T. Ravikumar, Advocate.
A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant is the Apartment Welfare Association, having flat owners as Members in the Society, filed this complaint against the opposite parties builders, claiming for the restoration of two rooms in the Southern portion of the cellar about 1000 sq.ft. directing the opposite party to hand over the approved plan and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay the costs.
3. The complainants Society contended that the opposite parties constructed apartments and while doing the construction work for the purpose of opposite parties official use and other purposes, two rooms were constructed in the cellar portion, which are ordinarily intended for car parking and to be handed over to the Apartment Owners after the completion of construction work and also other two rooms with toilets on the terrace portion along with lumber room were all taken by the opposite parties without handing over to the Apartment Owners through the Association and they have occupied the same and also not giving approved plan so far, thereby come forward with the consumer complaint.
4. The opposite parties contended that the cellar portion, two rooms were constructed to be given to the flat owners and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement only on payment of the cost for the same and since they have not paid the costs, they were not handed over and being occupied by one Sivakumar for certain amount as monthly payment and as the approved plan is concerned since they have applied for regularization of the plan by paying necessary payment to the authority concerned and for all the builders and developers regarding the same is yet to be finalized by the authority concerned and hence the plan could not be handed over to the complainant and thereby there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
5. After considering both sides materials and after an enquiry, the District Forum dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and also regarding other reliefs, which could not be granted by the Consumer Forum and thereby the complaint was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come forward with this appeal and in the grounds of appeal among other things, it is contended that the District Forum failed to appreciate the facts of the complainants case and erroneously dismissed the complaint.
7. In this appeal, it is the both sides admitted case that there are two rooms construed in cellar portion, which was to be used as car parking by the owners of the Apartments and as per the contentions of the appellant/complainant that they are to be handed over to the flat owners through the Association without any further payment of money, since the opposite parties using the rooms by giving to one Sivakumar for monetary benefits. But the opposite parties have contended that the rooms intended for the purpose of car parking, constructed in the cellar portion were agreed to be handed over to the flat owners as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties and as per the agreement regarding the portion, it is mentioned as follows For all the purposes of maintenance, the building and for general administration, if requested and found to be necessary and if the allottees/owners request, at their own costs and expenses, the builder shall build an office in the building to be constructed, which will be transferred or allotted at the end of the 9 months period specified in the agreement to the Association or Society to be formed by the Allottees/owners. Since the construction was made as per the Clause and it should be transferred to the allottees at the end of the 9 months period specified in the agreement to the Association at their own costs and expenses. Accordingly, it is contended by the opposite parties, they have not paid the costs and expenses for the same till date and they are ready to transfer the same even now by receiving the costs at the old rate as on date on agreement even though more than 7 years have gone from the date of agreement dated 5.12.2003. The agreement copy is also marked as Ex.A3, dated 26.1.2004, in which, in Clause No.32, the above quoted condition is available. As per the above condition, it is clear that the built up portion as office to be handed over to the Association or allottees, at the request of the owners with their expenses, it will be handed over and thereby it is clear that the complainant cannot claim the same unless it is proved that they are paid the costs and expenses from the same, apart from the costs paid towards the construction of the apartments. In this case, the complainants have not come with such a plea and thereby in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement, they have no right to claim over the disputed property. Regarding the furnishing of the approved plan is concerned, it is admitted that the opposite parties have applied for necessary plan and also under the regularization scheme to the concerned authority and yet to be sanctioned by the concerned authority, pending policy of the Government and thereby the Consumer Forum cannot give any direction regarding this and upon considering all the aspects, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and thereby dismissed the complaint.
In view of the above said discussions and reasons, we are also of the same view that the complainant has failed to prove his case and the complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Forum, in which, we feel, no need for any interference and thereby the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, in C.C.140/2009, dated 24.02.2010. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.
VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT