O R D E R

(By Hon’ble Justice Thiru.R.Pongiappan)

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 14 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the opposite parties for the following reliefs:

a) Directing the First and Second Opposite parties jointly and severally pay the complainants a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) under section 14(1)(c) of the Act.

b) Directing the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.62,50,000/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) as damages towards loss of income, transportation expenses, mental, harassment, suffering and hardship due to deficiency of service, callous attitude, negligence, unfair trade practice of the opposite parties under section 14(1)(d) of the Act.

c) Direct the Opposite parties to pay cost to the complainant.

The case of the complainant is as follows:

2. Complainants 1 and 2 are the spouse. Upon representation given by the first and second opposite parties, after due negotiation with the first opposite party, the first complainant agreed to purchase two flats each measuring 810sq.ft. for a total consideration of Rs.12,50,000/-. Terms and conditions for the purchase of proposed flats were reduced to writing by virtue of Bilateral agreement dated 26.07.2004.

3. On the same date of execution of the bilateral agreement by the first opposite party with the first complainant, the second opposite party had executed an indemnity bond to the first complainant described as Deed of Indemnity claiming himself to be the builder for the propose construction. The second opposite party conniving with the first opposite party claiming to have privity of contract for the proposed construction of the flats between interse opposites parties promised to indemnify the complainants by the said deed of Indemnity by a compensation in case of any or negligence. The specifications and plan as detailed in the said Bond dated 26.07.2004. As per the agreement, the first opposite party agreed to complete the construction of the flats in the proposed multi-storied building at Solaithandavankuppam, Muthialpet Village in a land measuring 20520 sq.ft. failing in R.S.No.71/4 and T.S.No.47 in Ward A Block No.24 at Pondicherry Revenue Village as per the schedule of finishes and specifications with the plans within one year. By virtue of the same agreement, the schedule of payment of the sale consideration was to be in consonance with the stage of construction in the following terms:

SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT:

i) Foundation & Basement - 20% ii) Brick work upto roof level - 20% iii) Concrete for roof - 20% iv) Electrical, wood work and plastering - 20% v) Tiles flooring, plumbing & planning - 15% vi) At the time of handling over the flats - 5%

4. In addition to that the first opposite party promise to handover possession of the proposed flats to the complainants within one year.

5. Later, at the instance of both the first and second opposite parties, the complainant approached the third opposite party bank and availed housing loan.

During such time, the third opposite party obtained signatures in various unfilled papers and blank forms from the complainant.

6. The third opposite party after processing the complainant’s application, sanctioned the required housing loan which was to the tune of Rs.10,50,000/- As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between first complainant and the first opposite party, the third opposite party bank is cast with a liability in disbursing the loan amount stage by stage. Therefore, at the first instance, the Bank ought to have released only 20% of the loan amount to the first opposite party. Contrary to the said agreement, on 25.03.2005, the third opposite party disbursed the entire loan amount at one stroke under the acknowledgement dated 26.03.2005. The said act of disbursing of entire loan amount of Rs.10,50,000/- at one stroke by the thi