CLASSIC KUDUMBAM & 2 ORS Vs. KAMAKSHI PANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two first appeals have been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 17.02.2012, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 46/2010, filed before them by the complainant Kamakshi Pant.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Mrs. Lakshmi Chander, the sister of the complainant Mrs. Kamakshi Pant and a widow, got herself admitted in an apartment made by a Retirement Community called the Classic Kudumbam.She visited the said place on 14.11.2008, accompanied by her sister (complainant) and her brother-in-law and met the Manager and the representatives of the Rajakalyani Charitable Trust, managing the said Retirement Community.She stayed for four days on trial basis, in apartment No. 102 from 13.12.2008 on payment of Rs.8,000/-. The opposite party (OP) allotted apartment No. 211 to her on 24.12.2008, for which she made payment of Rs.10 lakh in the name of Classic Kudumbam and payment of another Rs.50,000/- in favour of Rajakalyani Trust as caution deposit. It has been stated in the consumer complaint that the said deposits were made on the understanding that the same will be refunded at the time of surrendering the premises in question. It is also stated that the caution deposit of Rs.50,000/- was meant for meeting the cost of medical emergencies. For her stay at the premises, she was made to pay a fee every month towards accommodation, food and other expenses and her monthly bill, on the average, came to be Rs.11,000/-. It has been alleged in the consumer complaint that the OPs had given the assurance that a qualified doctor would visit the Retirement Community every day, but there were no such regular visits by the doctor. It is further stated that Mrs. Lakshmi Chander became unwell on 26.11.2009 and that she consulted Dr. Augustine on that day, but the said Doctor made wrong diagnosis upon her and prescribed medicines which were not suitable. After two days, the complainant had to take Mrs. Lakshmi Chander to a hospital for treatment of internal bleeding and then, she was admitted to the critical care unit of the Apollo Hospital, but Mrs. Lakshmi Chander could not survive and died on 17.02.2010. It is alleged that there was lack of basic medical care at the Classic Kudumbam, which showed deficiency in service on their part. After Mrs. Lakshmi Chander moved out of Classic Kudumbam, it was conveyed to the OPs that she would be surrendering her apartment from 17.12.2009. The OPs sent reply dated 18.12.2009 that the surrender would be effective by the end of December 2009. The said apartment was surrendered on 28.12.2009, but the deposits of Rs.10 lakh and Rs.50,000/- were not refunded to her. Subsequently, the complainant received a cheque of Rs.11,500/- from the OPs on 25.06.2010, stating that a sum of Rs.39,500/- out of the caution deposit of Rs.50,000/-, had been spent by them in the repair work etc. for the apartment. However, the complainant returned the said cheque to the OPs, stating that the full amount of deposit should be refunded to them. Regarding the deposit of Rs.10 lakh, it was stated by the OPs that the said sum would be refunded, after the said premises was occupied by next person. The complainants filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakh and Rs.50,000/- as deposits having been made at the time of occupying the premises and also to pay a compensation of Rs.10 lakh for mental agony etc.

(3.) The consumer complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a written version before the State Commission, in which they stated that in accordance with an agreement entered by them with Mrs. Lakshmi Chander, called the "Deed of Licence", only 70% of the amount of Rs.10 lakh deposited with them was refundable without interest, on the termination of the agreement and handing over the premises back to the OPs.Moreover any damage, repairs, wear and tear of the furniture items and fixtures provided by the OPs, was to be made at the cost of the user.The OPs stated that the amount spent on the repair and rectification of Room No. 211 was Rs.39,500/- and after deducting the said amount from the caution money, the balance amount of Rs.11,500/- was refunded to the complainant as nominee of Mrs. Lakshmi Chander.Since she returned the said cheque through letter dated 06.07.2010, they sent the cheque again, but the same was returned once more.The OPs further stated that 70% of the deposit of Rs.10 lakh was to be refunded without interest only, after the room vacated by the previous occupant was booked by another person.Since the said room No. 211 was booked by an occupant on 14.10.2010, they refunded a sum of Rs.7 lakh to the complainant vide cheque dated 20.10.2010, which was accepted by the complainant vide her letter dated 04.11.2010 without prejudice.The OPs stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part.