DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 24^th day of January 2023                                                                                                

                             Filed on: 04/08/2018

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                 Member                                                                  

I.A. NO. 103/2019 IN CC NO.322/2018

Between

PETITIONER/ OPPOSITE PARTIES

1.     M/s. B2 Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., (Regd. Office at 29/184, Shornur road, Thrissur – 01) rep. by its Managing Director, K. Bharathan, Top Constructions, Cochin Devaswom Board Building, Round North, Thrissur -01

2.     K. Bharathan, Managing Director, M/s. B2 Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., S/o. balakrishnan Nair, Mullappally House, Poonkunnam, Thrissur.

(Rep. by Adv. Manumon A., 2^nd Floor, Peace Tower, Opp. North Gate of Collectorate & District Panchayath Ayyanthole, Thrissur 680003)

VS

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Jeevan Janardhanan Asan, S/o. Janardhanan Asan, Mannarazhikam, Kottapuram, Paravur, Kollam 691301. Rep. by POA Holder Sasikala N.K., Naikkara Veedu, Asary Lane, Karikkamuri, Ernakulam – 11.

(Rep. by Adv. Chithra R. Shenoy, 2^nd Floor, Lawyers Square, layam Road, Ernakulam)

FINAL ORDER

V. Ramachandran, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant states that he is working abroad and entrusted Smt. Sasikala N.K.. to represent his case before the Commission through Power of Attorney. The complainant further states that, desirous of buying a flat the complainant had entered into an agreement for sale with opposite parties for the purchase of a residential apartment in the scheme TOP HOMES constructed by the opposite parties at Ernakulam. The apartment required by the complainant was in the 4^th floor Type B of 920 sq. ft. and the total sale consideration was Rs.55,00,000/- including electric connection, water connection etc. etc. As per the agreement the apartment was to be handed over to the complainant on or before 30/12/2016. The opposite parties received the full amount of Rs.55,00,000/- from the complainant.

Even after receiving the entire amount, the opposite parties did not complete the construction work of the apartment and had not obtained electric connection, plumbing work, water connection etc. and demanded an enhanced amount of Rs.85,000/- which the complainant had paid in addition. Thus the complainant had paid altogether an amount of Rs.55,85,000/- to the opposite parties.

Further the complainant states that the opposite parties had not complied with the condition for providing electric connection, water connection etc. etc. The complainant states that he had paid the amount by availing a loan of Rs.16,00,000/- from Karur Vysya Bank. Even though the complainant had requested to the opposite parties to complete the construction and hand over the apartment, the opposite parties did not bend to his request and therefore the complainant approached this Commission seeking relief by issuing direction to the opposite parties to complete the construction and hand over the apartment along with other reliefs.

Upon notice from this Commission opposite parties appeared and filed their version.

The opposite parties denied all the allegations and stated that the opposite parties had executed sale deed vide No. 4378/2016 of Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam and denied all the other allegation stating that the complainant is an investor having many properties throughout Kerala and had purchased this flat for commercial purpose. The claim made under various heads by the complainant cannot be granted in the absence of evidence. The total sale consideration paid by the complainant as stated by him in the complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The opposite parties have filed a maintainability petition alleging that the complaint is not maintainable since the transaction is fully commercial. At the time of argument the opposite parties’ counsel raised objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the complaint.

The complainant had not adduced any evidence to substantiate that the transaction is not commercial. In the absence of proper evidence to defend the argument of the opposite parties that the transaction is for commercial purpose and not for consumer purpose and also since the value of goods or service and compensation is beyond the limit of the District Commission, I.A. is allowed and as a result of it the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 24^th day of January 2023,

Sd/-

                                                                             V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

                                                                             D.B.Binu, President 

                                                                                         Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member         

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 322/2018

Order Date: 24/01/2023