NAYNA SAKTI BHATTACHARYA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 Complainant residing at London attracted by the Homes exhibition conducted by the opposite party for marketing and procuring orders for the construction of house property to be developed at Garden Homes Project coming up near Bangalore in good faith and belief relying upon the details given by the opposite party in their brochure placed an order for a house ?pinewood? model 6 in place No.7, Block No.10 having plinth area about 6400 sq. ft. for the price of Rs.23,60,000/- as per the details and terms and conditions of the order mentioned dated 12.4.97. Complainant also ordered for additional optional items for the payment of Rs.3,55,510/- as per the letter dated 16.4.98. The amount was paid in instalments between the period from 12.4.97 to 10.10.97 and the additional amount Rs.3,55,510/- was also paid on 9.5.98. On 6.10.1999 the authorized representative of the company Mr.Amalanathan personally handed over possession of the house by handing over the keys as notional and symbolic and in good faith and good belief she signed the possession certificate. Subsequently on her visit on 9.11.07 at the house the handed over were found fault when used and house could not be opened with the keys supplied. There was no water and electricity supply. Cracks have developed in several places and substandard fixtures and fittings were used and some of them are not functioning. The other facilities like club house, community hall, shopping complex mini transport service were not existed as promised. Hence she sent a letter on 12.11.07 by fax to rectify all the defects and subsequent letters from 16.11.07 to 18.1.08. But the opposite parties remained in different and neglected to attend her complaint. She stayed in hotel for 3 months at Bangalore in the hope of setting right the things by the opposite party and the opposite party agreed to refund Rs.1,65,000/- in instalments being cost of non supply of optional items of fixtures and fittings which are not fitted and thereby the complainant suffered loss and damages towards the cost of the house for Rs.37,13,736/- with 18% interest and compensation for the loss in replacing the house which was not delivered for Rs.23,40,000/- and expenses incurred on Air travel, stay the hotel etc., for Rs.11,70,000/- and other damages for compensation on account of mental and physical stress and pains for 3 months. The complainant claiming the reliefs as above filed this complaint.

(2.) The opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant in their written version and stated the complainant purchased the house only after satisfying the terms and conditions of the pamphlets relating to the project advertised by the opposite party and the possession was handed over on 6.9.1999 by the opposite party?s representatives Mr.Amalanathan. Sale deed was executed in the name of complainant and the keys were handed over as early asin October 1999. After handing over possession the complainant visited the house only on 9.11.07 nearly after the period of 8 years. Hence the non opening of locks by the keys supplied by the opposite party because of locks kept unused for 8 years. Once possession is given in 1999 there is no need for the complainant to send message in 2007 for providing service. The project was never stated to be very near to Bangalore. It is 30 kms away from Bangalore and 18 kms from Hosur. Most of the houses were constructed and handed over to the other owners who have purchased as an investment basis and thereby there was lack of habitation and non use of facilities. The complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant has claimed only a sum of rs.1,65,800/- in her letter dated 18.1.08 and there are no other liabilities to the complainant. When the house was delivered already question of refunding the amount does not arise and they are not liable to pay any amount towards interest, compensation and damages. Complainant not proved the loss due to the alleged negligence. The opposite party has not committed any breach and there is no deficiency of service. Complaint is frivolous, baseless, devoid of merits and to be dismissed.

(3.) On the basis of both sides proof affidavits, complainant side documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A19 and for opposite party?s documents as Exhibits B1 and B2.