SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, T.S.P. MOOSATH, V.V. JOSE, JJ.
Dr. C.R. Ramadas – Appellant
Versus
N.R. Chandran – Respondent
Appeal No. 475 of 2017
Decided On : 09-05-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. B. Abdul Karim, Mr. Narayan R.

The main legal point established is the requirement for detailed description of expenses in the agreement and the entitlement to collect amounts from purchasers, as per Ext.P1 Clause 19 and Schedule E.

Headnote:

Deficiency in Service - Consumer Disputes - Ext.P1 Clause 19 - Ext.P1 Schedule E - Thrissur Corporation Act, Water Supply Authority Act - The court discussed the provisions of Ext.P1 Clause 19 and Schedule E, and the relevant acts including the Thrissur Corporation Act and Water Supply Authority Act. The court emphasized the requirement for detailed description of expenses in the agreement and the entitlement to collect amounts from purchasers. The court found that the opposite party's collection of excess amounts was unilateral and upheld the District Forum's decision to refund the complainant.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite party for illegally collecting excess amounts in the sale and transfer of ownership of a flat. The District Forum directed the opposite party to refund the excess amount to the complainant.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the District Forum's decision, finding that the opposite party's collection of excess amounts was unilateral and against the conditions in the agreement.

Issues: The issues involved the collection of excess amounts by the opposite party for various expenses related to the flat, and the entitlement to collect amounts from purchasers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for detailed description of expenses in the agreement and the entitlement to collect amounts from purchasers, as per Ext.P1 Clause 19 and Schedule E.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the District Forum's decision to refund the excess amount to the complainant.

ORDER :

1. The opposite party in C.C. No. 150/15 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur in short, the District Forum, has filed the appeal against the Order passed by the District Forum dated 31.5.2017, by which the opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 48,750 to the complainant along with Rs. 3,000 towards compensation and cost.

2. The complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite party for illegally collecting excess amount from the complainant towards FOA deposit, electricity security deposit, development charges and water connection in the sale and transfer of ownership of a flat from the opposite party to the complainant. According to the complainant he had purchased Flat No. 15 from the opposite party vide agreement dated 14.5.2014. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement complainant is bound to pay the opposite party only the proportionate share of the expenses towards FOD deposit, electrical security deposit, development charges, water connection charges. The opposite party is entitled to realize only Rs. 10,500 towards the expenses. But the opposite party has collected Rs. 50,000 from the complainant. Thus the opposite party realized an excess amount of Rs. 37,500 from the complainant. The opposite party is entitled to realize only Rs. 3,750 towards the yearly maintenance charge but they have realized an amount of Rs. 15,000. So they have collected an excess amount of Rs. 11,250 So the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 48,750 from the opposite party. In the version filed by the opposite party they stated that they have not collected any excess amount from the complainant and only the actual expenses incurred for getting the electrical connection, water connection including deposits and incidental expenses were collected from all flat owners including the complainant. The collection of proportionate share in accordance with the area occupied will be applicable only in the case of the maintenance charges and complainant is at liberty to take up the matter at the Association meetings. The payment of deposits will be applicable to all flat owners irrespective of the area occupied by them. The allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has collected Rs. 37,500 from the complainant is not correct. Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P9 were marked. DW1 was examined and Exts R1 and R2 were marked on the side of the opposite party.

4. The District Forum after considering the evidence and hearing both sides, passed the Order directing the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs. 48,750 to the complainant along with Rs. 3,000 towards compensation and cost. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum the opposite party has filed the present appeal.

5. Heard the Counsel for the appellant and respondent (party-in-person). Perused the records.

6. The complainant had purchased two flats from the opposite party, as per Ext. P2 and P3, one is having area of 589 sq. ft. and the other is having area of 250 sq. ft. (studio flat). The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has collected Rs. 50,000 from him towards FOA deposit, electrical security deposit and development charges and water connection charges and they had collected Rs. 15,000 from him towards first year maintenance charges for the flat having area of 250 sq. ft. the same amount collected for the other flat having area 589 sq. ft. According to the complainant the said collection of the amount by the opposite party is against the conditions in Ext.P1 agreement and the opposite party is entitled to realize amounts in proportion to the area occupied by him. So according to the complainant the respondent can collect only Rs. 12,500 towards FOA deposit, development charges, etc. but they collected Rs. 50,000. So they collected excess amount of Rs. 37,500. According to the complainant the opposite party can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top