Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. When delay occurred in the matter and according to them, as the company was not responding to the requests made by the buyers, they formed an association, viz. Suryanelli Sundale Township Investors Society, Reg. No.ER 477 and took steps in the matter. Some of the members of the association approached the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Ext.J12 is the order passed by the Commission dated 19.12.2000. The Commission took the view that the price received by the promoter company included the price of the house plot allotted to the buyers as well as contribution of the buyers towards expenses for developing the township project. Certain directions were issued by the Commission. The important direction  was to the company to make ready the house plots within six months from the date of order and also to provide all the promised common amenities within six months from the time of building houses by the buyers of house plots. In the alternative, the Commission permitted that the buyers could take possession of the project land and develop it by themselves and recover compensation from the company by taking out execution proceedings. The order was not appealed against and it became final. It is the case of the appellants that subsequently the company did not take any steps in the matter and therefore the buyers through the association employed qualified surveyors who conducted a survey for fixing the boundaries of the township land and to separate the house plots, roads and land left for common amenities. This has happened in 2003-2004. According to them, the plots were then divided and possession was taken also.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants in LAA No.472/2013, Shri John Joseph led arguments for the allottees as well as the agreement holders. Detailed argument note has also been filed.

16. While tracing out the history of the entire issue, it is submitted that the parties were attracted by the offer made by the company in the brochures Exts.J6 and J7. The site of the proposed project has also been shown therein. It will show that the company will have to construct a bridge over Kadambrayar. It is submitted that the offer being one for common amenities and common areas including for park, play ground as well as swimming pool, etc. and as the  amounts have been collected by the beneficiary for the same from each of the plot owners, they have a right to collect compensation for the common area. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the said allottees that when plots are divided each individual plot will have the advantage of having access to the adjoining property through the other common areas thus utilising it for the benefit of the plot owners. If that be so, the common amenities and facilities being an integral part of the allotted plots, they have got equitable title to those items of properties and therefore they alone are entitled for compensation. The company cannot claim any amount.

17. Learned counsel submitted, by heavily relying upon Ext.J12 order passed by the Commission, that the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the Commission") has become final and the same is binding on the parties who approached the Commission as well as the persons claiming under them. Learned counsel invited our attention to the detailed findings of the Commission whereby the Commission found in favour of the plot owners for common amenities and ultimately issued directions also for  implementation of the project. It is submitted that the findings of the Commission will act as res judicata in respect of the present proceedings. It is emphasised by the learned counsel that once the Commission's findings have given right to the plot owners and declared their rights for the common areas and common amenities, the same is a binding order and the reference court was bound to render justice by accepting those findings. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the respondents cannot be heard to say that they have got a right in the property. The Company could not have transferred any item of property to any person including claimants 17, 19 and 20. It is also submitted that the fraudulent nature of the transaction is evident as one of the directors have transferred the property to the appellant in LAA No.333/2013 from whom the appellants in LAA No.441/2013 have purchased the property. It is submitted that the findings of the reference court in favour of the agreement holders will show that their claims have been accepted. The same yardstick will have to be applied as far as other items of properties purchased by claimants 19 and 20.

41. In this context, we will have to advert to the evidence of 10th claimant who was examined as AW.32. In the proof affidavit various aspects have been pointed out. The documents Exts.J1 to J21 have been marked through him. It is emphasised by Shri John Joseph that the purchase of plot by the said claimant and similarly placed other claimants are based on the representation given by the company that  after purchase the said area will be developed as a township by providing roads in between the house plots and built up common amenities will be provided. Accordingly, it is contended that the purchase price paid by them to the company includes the proportionate share over the common area and amenities.