C. PRAKASH Vs. R. GUNASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to the Act), has been filed by C. Prakash, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner), against the Order dtd. 22/4/2015, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 211 of 2013, whereby the State Commission while setting aside the Order dtd. 22/1/2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission), partly allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Complainant, the Respondent herein, and directed the Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.15,66,730.00 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint (viz. 4/5/2010) till realization towards compensation for the defective construction of the building and the deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000.00 as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000.00 as litigation costs. By its Order dtd. 22/1/2013, the District Commission had dismissed the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent, on the grounds that though the Respondent had entered into the Sale Agreement dtd. 6/2/2008 to purchase a house site, with a building being built on it, he had made the payment in three installments and, therefore, had every occasion to refuse to purchase the building if the same had been built with substandard materials and deviated from the approved plans; and the Sale Agreement cannot be treated as a construction agreement, containing terms and specifications, according to which the Petitioner had to construct the building. The District Commission was of the opinion that the Petitioner had sold a fully constructed house to the Respondent and there was no agreement between the parties to construct a house according to the specifications given. However, the State Commission in the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner herein against the Order passed by the District Commission, held that the Respondent had purchased the property and only thereafter the building was constructed by the Petitioner and, therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that he had sold the fully constructed house was untenable.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner was Owner of a vacant plot of land, admeasuring 2925 sq. ft. or 6 cents and 311 sq. ft., in Ondipoodur Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. No. CBE/HSG-17, under Survey/Site No. 52 in Village Singanalur, which he had purchased from V. Kalimuttu and his wife M. Santini on 25/10/2007 vide Sale Deed registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar. The site plan for constructing a building on the said plot of land was obtained by the previous Owners from Coimbatore Corporation on 6/2/2007, which was valid for two years from 6/2/2007 till 6/2/2009. While constructing the building, the Petitioner approached the Respondent for sale of the property after procuring water and electricity connection as per the permission obtained in the site plan. The Respondent agreed to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.35,00,000.00 and accordingly both the Parties entered into a Sale Agreement on 6/2/2008. Though the Respondent had already paid a total sum of Rs.30,00,000.00 on different occasions, the Sale Deed was not executed by the Petitioner and the amount paid by the Respondent was used by him in order to repay the loan taken by him. The Petitioner requested the Respondent to accept the Sale Deed for vacant plot, stating that he would complete the building and give possession very soon. The Sale Deed was executed by the Petitioner on 5/6/2008. Subsequently, the Respondent paid a sum of Rs.9,50,000.00 to the Petitioner and on 10/7/2008 the possession was given, promising to complete the building later. The Respondent found that the building was not constructed with standard material and the Petitioner did not pay the property tax and not obtained the water/electricity connections. The Respondent engaged an Engineer to inspect the building and prepare an estimate therefor. The said Engineer opined that the cost of the building would be Rs.15,01,971.00. The Respondent also incurred some amount for paying the same to the Coimbatore Corporation and for obtaining water connection. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the Petitioner to pay the differential amount.

(3.) Heard the Respondent, who appeared in person, and perused the averments made in the Orders passed by the Fora below, the grounds taken in the Memo of Revision Petition and the documents filed along with it, including the Sale Agreement dtd. 6/2/2008 and the Sale Deed dtd. 5/6/2008.