Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60692
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Judge Name, J
Complainant – Appellant
Versus
1st Opposite Party – Respondent
FA.No.107/2016 | FA.No.179/2017 | CC.No.208/2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Advocate Name
For the Respondents:Advocate Name
Consumer complaints are maintainable in consumer courts despite arbitration clauses, reaffirming consumer protection under the law.
Headnote:The appeal concerns the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act and the jurisdiction of consumer fora concerning contractual disputes. The court ruling emphasizes that consumer complaints maintain their validity despite existing arbitration clauses, as outlined in the case (2013) III CPJ 439 (NC) and (2019) I CPJ 5 SC, affirming consumer rights to seek remedy in consumer courts. The court modifies the District Commission's order, allowing full refund of Rs.5 lakhs with interest for non-delivery of service as mentioned in the proceedings, confirming fairness in service provision.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed against the district commission's order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. complainant's claim based on contractual obligations. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. jurisdiction of consumer courts upheld despite arbitration clauses. (Para 8 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. full refund ordered due to deficiency in service. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. final ruling on appeal outcomes. (Para 18 , 19) |
1. The appeal in FA. No.107/2016 has been filed by the complainant as against the 1st opposite party alone, claiming disallowed portion of the order passed by the District Commission, Chennai (North) in CC. No. 208/2013 dated 7.6.2016.
2. As against the same order impugned, the 1st opposite party has filed an appeal in FA. No. 179/2017 praying to set aside the order impugned in toto.
3. Since both the appeals are arise out of the same order, these appeals are disposed of by way of common order.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as arrayed in the original complaint filed before the District Commission in CC. No. 208/2013.
5. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issues involved in the appeal are as follows: The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the 1st opposite party is a builder. The complainant booked a flat promoted by the 1st opposite party in Flat No. M - 4340 Type - 2BHR Phase IV, with super built up area of 1012 sq.ft with UDS measuring 563.61 sq.ft of land, and paid a sum of Rs.5 lakh as advance, i.e., Rs.1 lakh on 25.8.2011, and Rs.1,50,000 on 1.9.2011 thereafter on 19.9.2011 a sum of Rs.2,50,000 as against the total sale consideration of Rs.28,28,508.
As per the construction agreement dated 30.9.2013, the 1st opposite party had agreed to handover the possession of the flat within 24 months from the date of agreement. The 1st opposite party had undertaken to handover the possession on or before 30.9.2013.
The complainant is working as a Development Officer at LIC. Hence he wanted to avail housing loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd., to make the payment to the builder. At the time of making part sale consideration, the complainant requested the 1st opposite party to provide photo copies of the title deeds and other related documents pertaining to the said property to avail housing loan. But the complainant was informed by the 1st opposite party that they will send the documents to the LIC Housing Finance directly for their scrutiny to enable them to get a legal opinion on the title of property. However only after much persuasion, the opposite party has handed over the documents to the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Thereafter the legal opinion dated. 30.10.2012 was obtained from the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. In the said legal opinion certain defects were pointed out with regard to certain document. In view of the said defects pointed out in the legal opinion, again the complainant requested the opposite party to furnish the documents mentioned in the said legal opinion for processing the loan. Inspite of several requests on various dates in between 20.10.2012 to 24.4.2013 through E - Mail, the 1st opposite party has neither sent the documents nor sent any reply. Finally on 5.2.3013 the complainant made specific request either to comply the legal requirement or to refund the amount with accrued interest. There is no response for that email also. In such circumstances, the 1st opposite party has unilaterally cancelled the agreement and refunded a sum of Rs.1,82,189 and have forfeited the amount of Rs.3,17,811 as earnest money. Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice on 19.9.2013 demanding the refund of entire advance amount with compensation.
Unilateral cancellation of the agreement amounts to deficiency in service. Since there is no reply from the 1st opposite party, left with no other alternative, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging that the 1st opposite party had indulged in unfair trade practice and also committed deficiency of service, claiming for refund of
