IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH - PRESIDENT Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH, - JUDICIAL MEMBER C.C.No.65/2015 DATED, THE 09^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 Mrs. T. Nalini Ramesh, W/o. Mr. D. Ramesh, No.34, 2^nd Street, EB Colony, Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088. .. Complainant.

- Versus -

M/s. New Chennai Township Private Limited, Represented by Mr. P. Prithvi Krishna, No.4/318, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kottivakkam, Chennai – 600 041. .. Opposite party.

Counsel for Complainant : M/s. N. Samuthira Vijayan Counsel for Opposite party : M/s. B.R. Shankaralingam This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 25.08.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both parties and upon perusing the material records submitted by both parties this Commission made the following order in the open Court:-

ORDER

Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present complaint was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.6,55,400/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from November 2010 and Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants with cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

1. Brief facts necessitating the filing of complaint:

The opposite party gave wide publication for selling residential flats in the name and style of “MAARG-UTSAV”. Allured by the advertisement, the complainant booked a flat and paid a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- as initial amount and another sum of Rs.12,64,000/- by way of bank loan. He paid a total sum of Rs.14,79,000/- to the opposite party. But as assured, the flat was not handed over at the end of the year 2012. The complainant paid his EMI to the bank regularly. Inspite of several reminders, the opposite party did not handover the possession of flat to the complainant. The opposite party after discussion with the complainant has agreed to pay further EMI to the bank. The opposite party sent a letter dt.16.04.2014 to the complainant to that effect. The opposite party failed to fulfil their promise, finally the EMI was paid by the complainant. Hence, as per the discussion and letter given by the opposite party is liable to pay a) a sum of Rs.3,72,400/- (EMI amount paid by the complainant)

b) a sum of Rs.58,000/- arrears in the advance amount.

c) a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards Registration Charges d) a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for default in handing over possession.

But the opposite party has not paid as agreed. Hence, the complainant sent legal notice dt.03.07.2014 to the opposite party which was served to him. Since the opposite party failed to refund the amount or abide by the consent letter, this complaint is filed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.6,55,400/- with interest at the rate of

12% from November 2010 and to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant with cost of Rs.50,000/-.

2. Written version of the opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party in his written version has stated that they proposed to construct apartments in the name and style of “MAARG-UTSAV” and the complainant agreed to take a Lease an apartment bearing Flat No.G-7, Block – K measuring a plinth area of 1065 sq. ft. together with 756 sq. ft UDS in the land. The opposite party further submitted that the above project of construction was subject to obtaining permission from the authorities. There is a force majeure clause in the Agreement. As the permissions and approval were not received in time there was a delay in constructing the apartment. The complainant is put to strict proof of the allegation in para No.10 of the complaint. The complainant ceased to be a consumer and this consumer complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

3. The complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked on the side of the complain