State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
N. Ravindranath, ] P.B. No.264, ... vs 1. The Executive Engineer & ] ... on 30 January, 2014
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Hon'ble Justice Thiru R. Regupathi PRESIDENT Thiru J. Jayaram, JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A. No. 589 / 2011 (Against Order in C.C.No.539/2006, dated 9-3-2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai [South]) Dated this the 30th day of JANUARY, 2014 N. Ravindranath, ] P.B. No.264, Mulasali Street, ] Venkatagiri, Nellore, ] Represented by Power Agent ] Mrs. A. Rose Mary, ] Appellant / Complainant W/o Andrew, ] No.M4/S1, Suriya Flats, ] Thiruvalluvar Nagar, ] Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041 ] Vs
1. The Executive Engineer & ] Administrative Officer, ] Besant Nagar Division, ] Tamil Nadu Housing Board ] ] Respondents /
2. The Chairman, ] 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, ] Anna Salai, ] Chennai 2 ] This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 20.12.2013 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:
Counsel for Appellant/ Complainant: Mr. N. Dhanasekaran Counsel for Respondents/Opposite Parties: Mr. V. Yuvakumar J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [South] in C.C.539/2006, dated 9-3-2011, dismissing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was allotted a flat by the 1st opposite party and he paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- as Earnest Money and the tentative value was fixed at Rs.1,57,000/- and as instructed by the 1st opposite party he paid the total amount of Rs.3,06,708/- including the last payment of Rs.69,876/- on 30-1-2003 and the sale deed was executed on 4-10-2004 and he has paid a sum of Rs.1,49,078/- in excess, over and above the total cost. In spite of repeated demands, the excess amount collected from him has not been refunded by the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint for direction to the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.1,49,078/- being the excess amount collected from him by the Opposite Parties, with interest @ 18 % p, a, from the date of execution of the sale deed dated 4-10-2004 till realization; and a sum of Rs.1 Lac for mental agony; and to pay costs.
3. According to the opposite parties, the tentative cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.1,47,000/-, and after fixing the final land cost, the opposite parties had collected the difference of Rs.16,000/- as on 31-3-1995, and the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.2,31,096/- and not Rs.3,06,708/- as claimed by the complainant and the complainant paid the balance of Rs.69,876/- on 30-1-2003 and the sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant on 4-10-2004. The total cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.1,57,000/- in the case of outright purchase. The question of refunding the amount of Rs.1,49,078/- does not arise as claimed by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.
5. First, it is pertinent to note that the appellant / complainant has stated in the complaint and the proof affidavit that he paid a total sum of Rs.3,06,708/- to the 1st opposite party, but contrary to this, in the additional proof affidavit, the complainant has stated that the total amount paid to the 1st opposite party is only Rs.2,57,708/-; including the last payment of Rs.69,876/-; and we find that the complainant is not certain about the total payment made by him to the opposite parties; whereas the opposite parties have stated that the complainant / allottee has paid only Rs.2,31,096/- and no amount was collected in excess from the complainant. Therefore, there is variance in the correct total amount paid by the complainant to the 1st opposite party itself is not established by the complainant.
6. It is pertinent to note that the sale deed is executed on 4-10-2004 whereas the complaint has been filed before the Consumer Forum on 4-9-2006 i.e. just less than two years after the execution of the sale deed. Further, it is significant to note that he has made the last payment of Rs.69,876/- on 30-1-2003 in full and final settlement, and the sale deed was executed on 4-10-2004.
7. Considering all these, we come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore we hold that the complainant has not established his case of deficiency in service against the opposite parties.
8. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. We agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum dismissing the complaint and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed as one without merits.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. No order as to costs in the appeal.
(J. JAYARAM) (R. REGUPATHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT