GOPI MOHAN NARESH Vs. INNU APARTMENTS KURAVANKONAM
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-9-4
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 08,2010

Gopi Mohan Naresh Appellant
VERSUS
Innu Apartments Kuravankonam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE appellant is the complainant and respondents are the opposite parties in OP No. 251/02 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in not refunding the advance amount of Rs. 25,000 which was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties at the time of booking of the apartment on 2.3.2000. The opposite parties entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
(2.) BEFORE the Forum below Exts. PI to Pll and Dl to D5 documents were produced and marked. On appreciation of the documentary evidence the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 30 6.2009 directing refund of Rs. 17,730 with interest and cost. The complainant is not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Forum below. Hence the present appeal.
(3.) WE heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal and argued for he position that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents /opposite parties due to their failure to refund advance amount of Rs. 25,000. On the other hand, the respondents/opposite parties supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. They relied on the documentary evidence adduced from their side and submitted that the documents available on record would show that a sum of Rs. 8270.80 spent by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant, thus, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. There is no dispute that the appellant/ complainant approached the respondents/ opposite parties for purchasing an apartment from the respondents/opposite parties and that the complainant paid Rs. 25,000 as advance on 2.3.2000. It is the case of the complainant that he paid the said advance amount of Rs. 25,000 with the condition that the advance amount is to be refunded, in case the complainant could not avail the financial assistance from financier/ LIC Housing Finance Ltd. It is the case of the complainant that the financier LIC Housing Finance Ltd. refused to grant the financial assistance for purchase of the apartment from the respondents/opposite parties and thereby the appellant/ complainant requested for refund of the advance amount of Rs. 25,000. But the appellant/complainant could not adduce any evidence that the advance amount of Rs. 25,000 was paid with any such condition. It is to be noted that the advance amount of Rs. 25,000 was paid on 2.3.2000. Ext. Dl letter and other correspondence between the complainant and opposite parties would make it clear that the appellant/complainant expressed his readiness to purchase the apartment from the opposite parties. Even during November 2000, the complainant/consumer was requesting the opposite parties to get the electricity provided for the flat earmarked for the complainant. Exts. D2 to D5 documents would support the case of the opposite parties that they had incurred an amount of Rs. 8270.80 for getting the electricity supply connection to the flat allotted to the complainant and that property tax was also paid by the opposite parties. It is further to be noted that Ext. D2 to D4 receipts would show the payment of Rs. 7,500 by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Documentary evidence available on record would make it clear that the opposite parties spent a total of Rs. 8270.80 for the flat earmarked for the complainant. Ext. Pll agreement would also show that the opposite parties fulfilled their part of the agreement regarding sale of the flat to the complainant; but the complainant was not ready to pay the balance sale consideration and take possession of the said flat. Considering all these aspects the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 17730 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of notice (3.1.2001) issued by the complainant demanding refund of the advance amount. The Forum below has also awarded future interest at the rate of 12% per annum with cost of Rs. 1,5000. The impugned order assed by the Forum below is to be upheld as the said award was passed considering the documentary evidence available on record. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The present appeal deserves dismissal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.