The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Builder penalised for deficient service

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Jun 07, 2004

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Builder penalised for deficient service

By K.T. Sangameswaran

CHENNAI, JUNE 6. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a builder and a construction company to return to an individual Rs. 6,84,751 with 12 per cent interest from June 1995 along with Rs. 50,000 damages and Rs. 5,000 as costs for "appalling deficiency in service." Having entered into an agreement and having received the entire construction and land costs for a flat, they had not honoured the agreement, the Commission said.

Sarada Natarajan of Coimbatore complained that she entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat and paid the construction and land costs. Though the agreement was to deliver the flat within a reasonable time, it was not honoured. In spite of several reminders and requests, no progress was made. He prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000 a month towards loss of return from June 1995 or refund Rs. 6,84,751 with interest and damages. United Builders and Consultants, Coimbatore, represented by its managing partner, K.C. Palanisamy and Cheran Constructions Ltd., represented by its director, Soundarya Palanisamy, were cited as the opposite parties.

The opposite parties contended that it was not true to say that even on the date of agreement the construction company had received the entire cost. For non-receipt of the entire consideration, the sale deed was cancelled. The builder had drawn the attention of the purchaser to the same. The allegations made in the complaint were false. There was no deficiency in service. A Bench consisting of the Commission president, Justice A. Raman and Member, R. Vanaroja, said there was abundant proof to show that the opposite parties had received the entire cost of construction and issued receipts. If really any amount was due to them, it was not known why they did not send any reply to the complainant's notice nor have chosen to initiate any legal action. The opposite parties had no right to cancel the allotment without reference to the complainant. Having agreed to construct and deliver possession, the opposite parties had delayed the matter without any basis and without any justifying cause. Not only had they chosen to take an untenable plea that the payment was not made, but they had also attempted to get away from making payment by raising a bogey. The opposite parties' act in not honouring the commitment amounted to not only deficiency in service but also caused considerable hardship and agony to the complainant, the Bench said.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu