- (1.) THE complainant attracted by an advertisement made by the opposite party promising to sell developed constructed plots approached the opposite party for purchase of a house measuring from 750 to 850 sq. ft. and deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards registration charges. Subsequently the plot was allotted at Vellachery Extension, Chennai. Thereafter the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. He further paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 by way of two cheques for Rs. 20,000 and for Rs. 30,000 dated 25.7.1996. The balance of Rs. 59,602.50 was paid on 11.8.1997. The opposite party expressed their inability to allot the plot originally as promised stating that some difficulty was experienced in procuring the land. They executed a sale deed conveying the plot No. 972 in Sunnambu Kolathur village, Madipakkam. It was also agreed between the parties that a sum of Rs. 9,38,410 has to be paid by the complainant towards cost of the construction. The complainant made several payments towards construction of the building and has paid in all a sum of Rs. 5,63,046.50 as on 12.2.1998 towards cost of the plot and construction of the building. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,40,762 early in February 1998 towards completion of ground floor roof level. When the complainant asked the opposite party why the construction has not been completed, the opposite party promised to take up the construction. The complainant made several visits to the property. There was no progress in the construction. The complainant was not in a position to pay further money towards construction of the 1st floor and towards finishing the painting as there was no progress in the construction. The action of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant finally wrote a letter to the opposite party on 10.5.1999, which was not responded by the opposite party. The complainant, therefore, alleges that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. She claims refund of the entire sum of Rs. 5,63,046.50 along with a sum of Rs. 2 lakh towards mental agony and costs.
(2.) THOUGH the opposite party filed the version, they did not later choose to participate in the inquiry.
(3.) THE points that arise for determination is : (1) Whether there is deficiency in service? (2) If so, to what compensation the complainant is entitled to? The points: In the version, we do not find any demur. The complainant has produced the documents, which have been marked as Ex. A1 to Ex. A15. The complainant has approached the opposite party when they promoted a scheme and deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000 as registration cost as we see from Ex. A1. This was acknowledged by the opposite party under Ex. A2 and Ex. A3. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 19.6.1996 towards booking fee and another sum of Rs. 50,000 on 25.7.1996. A further sum of Rs. 59,600.50 was also paid as we see from the receipt dated 9.8.1997. Another sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid on 24.11.1997. For the payment of Rs. 87,682 made on 9.12.1997, Ex. A8 is the receipt while Ex. A9 is the receipt for Rs. 50,000 dated 19.1.1998. On 12.2.1998 a sum of Rs. 90,762 was paid. By their letter dated 30.7.1998 they have informed that the substructure has been completed in the plot. On 6.8.1997 they have written to say that the confirmed price of the construction is Rs. 9,38,410. They have also stated that they have received Rs. 1,75,000 and thus a sum of Rs. 59,602.50 falls dues towards registration. On 2.9.1997 they informed about modifications in the house design. They sent an application form for electricity connection under Ex. A7 which was signed and sent by the complainant to the opposite party. On 18.11.1997, they wrote to inform that they have commenced work on 11.11.1997. They have also stated that the construction work has commenced for 90 plots and foundation work has been completed for 70 plots and the superstructure is put up in the remaining 35 plots. Then suddenly they wrote to inform on 27.3.1998 that there has been a change in management and there has been a severe cash crunch and, therefore, they are compelled to minimise the inputs. They go on writing to the complainant that the construction is going on. On 10.5.1999, the complainant writes to them that there has been enormous delay in the construction and nothing has taken place till her letter and the complainant has expressed her unhappiness.;