BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.20/2015

Dated this the  27^th  day of August 2015.

Louis Gilbert Aroquiassamy @ SAMICANNOU

S/o Louis Joseph Aroquiassamy,

No.39 and 40, 2^nd Floor, Singapore Avenue,

Muthyrayarpalayam Road, Moolakulam

Puducherry – 605 010.

                                                            ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s Honesty Associates rep. by its Partners

    P. Vetriselvam, son of Pandiyan  

2. G. Murali, Son of Ganesan,

Both are residing at No.12, Preethi complex, Lenin Street

Kosapalayam, Puducherry – 605 013.

                                    .                                              ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                      :  Party-in-Person.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 12 (1) and 13 (1) and (2) r/w 14 [C] AND (D) of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to:

1. Direct the opposite parties to immediately finish the pending works (compound wall construction and provide 3 phase electricity connection within the apartments) and hand over the flats to all flat owners together with original town planning authority document, electricity wiring sketch plan;
2. Direct the Opposite parties to allot north parking to the complainant  as the later is owner of 2 jointed flats and other parking to other co-flat owners.
3. Direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation to deter such deficiencies in Service by the Opposite Parties;
4. Direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards physical and mental sufferings and agony as are caused to the complainant and his family;
5. Direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- as costs of proceedings and for any other  reliefs.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant is the owner of the property situated at Oulgaret Revenue village, village No.35, R.S. No. 166/1, Cad. No. 780, 781 pt, Patta No. 187 bearing plot Nos. 39 and 40 to an extent of 3000 sq. ft.  and that he entered into an agreement with the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 on 24.11.2007 as joint venture that the Opposite Parties would erect an apartment in the above property named as "SRI ANANDA NIVAS" and approval was given by the Puducherry Land Planning Authority inclusive of amalgamation of plots by letter dated July 2008 and the work would complete in a year.  According to the conditions of the agreement, the Opposite Parties should construction an Apartment and get electricity connection and to allot two flats each of 1100 sq. ft. and have also common works for the building 1. Car Parking and 2. Electrical Services.  The complainant issued a personal notice to the Opposite Parties on 11.11.2009 for not having finished the construction works in time, but the Opposite parties had not handed over the flats tioll date.  Further as per agreement, if the hand over by the building is delayed, the later has agreed to pay monthly charges Rs.6000/- to the complainant, but the Opposite Parties have not paid the delay charges upto till date.   The co-flat owner namely R. Kanchan Rajasekari had issued an advocate notice dated 21.06.2010 for which the opposite parties gave reply on 4.7.2010 admitting the non-erection of the compound wall and that they are waiting for the erection of the additional transformer.  The complainant had to vacate his rented house on the promise of opposite parties and did not have any other option except to occupy the uncompleted flats, the opposite parties promised to complete all the requirements, but failed to perform.  The complainant informed many times about the deficiency and also lodged many complaints to the Reddiarpalayam Police Station on 22.7.2013, 13.08.2013 and 24.12.2013, due to that, the complainant suffered mentally and physically and it is understood that the conduct of the opposite parties that they have knowingly committed fraud on the complainant.  Further, the opposite parties are also liable to pay damages.  Hence, this complaint.

3.         The opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

4.         On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C13.

5.         Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.  Point No.1:

The complainant has entered into an agreement Ex.C1 dated 24.11.2007 with the Opposite Parties for Construction of an apartment at Oulgaret Revenue village, village No.35, R.S. No. 166/1, Cad. No. 780, 781 pt, Patta No. 187 bearing plot Nos. 39 and 40 to an extent of 3000 sq. ft. and agreed to allot two flats of 110 sq. ft. each for the agreed value.   Hence the complainant is consumer for the opposite parties.

7.  POINT No.2:

The Complainant filed Exs.C1 to C13, written arguments and adduced evidence.  Even though sufficient opportunities were given to the Opposite Parties to file their reply version, they have neither filed any reply version nor refuted the allegation of the complainant, hence, they were set ex parte.  The complainant submitted that he entered into an agreement (Ex.C1) with the opposite parties to construct an apartment on 24.11.2007 and the works should be completed and the key should be handed over on 16.07.2009, but the opposite parties have not handed over the flats till date to any of the dwellers including the complainant.  It is further submitted by the complainant that as per agreement Ex.C1, if the hand over of the building is delayed, the opposite parties have  agreed to pay monthly charges of Rs.6000/- to the complainant, but the same was also not given to him.  The copy of approval of Town Planning Authority to construct the apartment is marked as Ex.C2.  The opposite parties also given an affidavit for bearing expenses of installing transformer which is marked as Ex.C3.  It is further stated by the complainant that one of the co-flat owner by name R. Kanchana Rajasekari issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 21.06.2010 vide Ex.C5, for which the opposite parties gave a reply through their Counsel on 4.7.2010 vide Ex.C6 admitting that they have not erected the compound wall and waiting for the erection of additional transformer.  It is further alleged by the complainant that due to non-handing over of the Apartments and the parking areas, the relationship between him and the co-flat owners have considerable deteriorated and in this regard, he lodged a complaint Ex.C7 with the police for the hindrance caused by the co-flat owners to the ingress and egress of the vehicles to the Apartment.  Further the complainant stated that on various dates, he had lodged complaint before the Reddiarpalayam Police Station for the non-completion of work and non-handing over of the building for which the Police has given a Non-Cognizable Report.  Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 are the copies of complaint given by the Complainant against the opposite parties and Ex.C10 is the copy of Non-Cognizable Report. Inspite of repeated requests over phone as well as by letter by the complainant, the opposite parties did not responded hence, the complainant issued a legal notice Ex.C13 to the opposite parties on 18.6.2014 but the same were returned by the opposite parties.

8. From the above facts and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear that the alleged works to be completed by the opposite parties as per Ex.C1 the agreement entered between them and the complainant on 24.11.2007.  The Opposite parties are not come forward to carry out the works which they had omitted to do as per agreement.  The negligent Act gave mental agony, loss and sufferings to the complainant.   The complainant clearly established his case and proved the negligent act, deficiency in service and  unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for the claim and Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for the same.  

9.         Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to 

1. Finish the pending works as per agreement dated 24.11.2007 and hand over the flat to the Complainant together with original Town Planning Authority Approval, electricity wiring sketch plan and 3 phase electric connection;
2. Allot north parking to the complainant. 
3. Pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/-   as compensation to the complainant towards loss and injuries sustained by complainant;  and
4. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

The above order should be complied within three months from the date of the receipt of the order.

Dated this the 27^th  day of August 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW.1              22.07.2015                LOUIS Gilbert Aroquiassamy @ SAMICANNOU

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  NIL

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTIES EXHIBITS: Nil

1. ASOKAN)

    PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER