STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/15/57 JOE ANTONY PRESENT ADDRESS - CHETTUPUZHAKKARANS HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 18 ,KERALA.

anita joe PRESENT ADDRESS - CHETTUPUZHAKKARANS HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 18 ,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus M/S PURAVANKARA PROJECTS PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - 130/1, ulsoor road,bangalore 560042 ,KERALA.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C. No. 57/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 21.05.2025 PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER COMPLAINANTS:

1. Joe Antony, S/o C.K. Antony, Chettupuzhakkaran’s House, Market Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-18.

2. Anita Joe, Chettupuzhakkaran’s House, Market Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-18.

(By Adv. S. Reghukumar and Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. M/s Puravankara Projects Ltd., having registered office at No. 130/1, Ulsoor Road, Bangalore, Pin- 560 042 represented by its Managing Director, Ravi Puravankara.

2. M/s Puravankara Projects Ltd. having its branch office G 261, Panampilly Avenue, Panampilly Nagar P.O., Kochi -682 036 represented by its Authorized Officer, Senior Legal Manager K. Dileep.

(By Adv. Jolly John and Adv. Irene Babu)

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a complaint filed under Sec. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The Puravankara Projects Ltd. and its Senior Legal Manager are the opposite parties. They are engaged in the construction of the apartment. On 21.07.2007, the complainants had entered into an agreement for sale with the opposite parties for the purchase of undivided share in the land comprising in 104.9578 Ares of land. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs. 23,24,400/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred only). A construction agreement was also entered into between the complainants and the opposite parties on 21.07.2007. As per the construction agreement, the opposite parties had agreed to construct a three bed room th apartment bearing No. 720 on the 7 floor in the GD Block with covered car parking area be handed over to the complainants. The total consideration was fixed as Rs. 45,37,975/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Five only). The construction has to be completed within 30 months from the date of obtaining commencement certificate for the project from the relevant authority. The complainants had paid an amount of Rs. 42,54,667/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Seven only). The complainants had to avail home loan from the HDFC Ltd. for effecting the payments. The construction was unduly delayed. On account of the compulsion of the complainants, the sale deed was executed on 15.01.2015. The complainants were forced to pay Rs. 36,83,385/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh Eighty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Five only) for registration which includes statutory charges, tax, contribution towards the electricity and water, advance maintenance charges etc. before handing over of the key and transferring possession of the apartment. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties in causing undue delay in completing the work. The opposite parties ought to have paid the interest for the amount of Rs. 42,54,667/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Seven only)received by them. The complainants would seek for interest @ 18% for the amount of Rs. 42,54,667/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Seven only)from January 2009 till December 2014 for 72 months. Thus, the complainants would seek for realization of compensation of Rs. 45,95,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakh Ninety Five Thousand only) and Rs. 1,00,000