Back
K. Sukumaran Pillai - Appellant
Versus
P.R.S. Builders - Respondent
Decided On : 01/06/1993
Complaint No. 224 of 1992
.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 17(a)(i), 18 r/w 12(a) - C6mplaint about 8 defects in the allotment of Apartment by a Builder - Listed 11 items to claim Rs. 1,57,000/- Needing complicated and complex litigation, requiring a large number of witnesses Outside the simple and speedy redressal under COPRA Act• Referred the com• plaint to a suit in Civil Court, dismissing the same. (Para 3)
Result: Complaint dismissed accordingly.
IMPORTANT POINT
Under Consumer Protection Act. 1986 “speedy and simple redressal” is envisaged so a compliant requiring complicated and complex litigation is not contemplated by it but by a suit in Civil Court.
G. Balagangadharan Nair, President This is a complaint submitted under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The complainant executed an agreement with the P.R.S. Builders, who were carrying on building activity under the name P.R.S. Sangeeth Apartments. The agreement was executed between R. Murugan, representing the P.R.S. Builders' and G.R. Kamalabai Amma, wife of K. Sukumara Pillai(complainant). In the complaint the complainant had listed 8 defects. They are causing flooding of the bathroom etc. This is likely to cause crumbling of the entire structure etc. The complainant has listed 8 items of damages and their cost". They are removal of damages costing Rs. 40.000/- compensation amounting to Rs. 30,000/- balance amount of Rs. 2080. the extra amount of Rs. 5000/- collected from electrical deposits. share amount of Rs. 37,440/- being the sale of car sheds, refund of Rs. 200/-, excess collection of water charges amount required for covering the light well with fibre glass Rs.1,500/- amount required for covering installation of electric wire Rs. 3000/- and compensation for the mental agony Rs. 30,000/-. All these add upto Rs. 1,57,700/-. Photocopy of items 1 to 11. The complainant has listed 11 items.
3. After hearing the complainant and going through the records, we feel that this will not provide a "speedy and simple redressal" but will lead to complicated and complex litigation, requiring a large number or witnesses. This is not what is contemplated by the Act. That can be achieved only in a suit. We feel that the complaint must be referred to a suit. We refer the complaint to a suit and dismiss the complaint.
Complaint dismissed accordingly.
Complaint dismissed accordingly.
