Date of filing : 30.06.2014.

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH:PRESIDENT C.C.No.95 of 2014 Tuesday, the 21^st day of January, 2025 Mrs. R.Menaka Gunavalan, W/o S.Ramesh Kumar, No.10/672, Plot No.74, VGP, Babu Nagar, Second Street, Medavakkam, Chennai – 600 100. ... Complainant Vs

1. Mrs. H.Rajalakshmi, W/o K.Harihara Subramaniar, 2. Mr. H.Kailasam, S/o K.Harihara Subramaniar, 3. Mrs. K.Aparna, W/o. H.Kailasam, All are residing at No.135, Pulipandian Cross Street, Jaihindpuram, Madurai – 11. ... Opposite parties Counsel for the Complainant : M/s.T.Natarajan Counsel for the Opposite parties : M/s. A.Palaniappan This complaint came up for final hearing on today

21.01.2025 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following open court order in the Open Court:-

ORDER

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT (Open Court)

This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the opposite parties for the following reliefs:

(a) To direct the opposite parties to rectify the defects/shortcomings;

(b) To refund the extra amount of Rs.1,30,258/- paid in respect of the Second Floor Flat with interest at the rate of 15% from March 2012 to till date of payment;

(c) To pay Rs.48,000/- being the rental charges from August 2011 to March 2012 @ Rs.6,000/- per month in respect of the flat;

(d) To pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, stress suffered by them;

(e) To pay Rs.10,00,000/- for indulging in unfair trade practice; and (f) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

2. The case of the complainant is that the 1st opposite party representing as a builder and power agent of one Mrs. Latha Udayashankar, empowered to deal with the piece and parcel of land admeasuring an extent of 2460 sq. ft. comprised in S.No.427/2A, 2G2 Part in VGP Babu Nagar, situated in Plot No.74, Medavakkam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, approached the complainant and offered to construct a flat. Believing the representation of the 1st opposite party, the complainant entered into a Construction Agreement on 21.02.2011, for developing the property and to construct a flat ‘G1’ in Ground Floor having a plinth area of 836 sq. ft. in the undivided share of 400 sq. ft., along with a car parking. The total cost of the construction for the flat was fixed at Rs.32,00,000/-. The 1^st opposite party executed the sale deed dated 06.05.2011 in respect of the undivided share of 415 sq. ft. of land at Plot No.74, VGP Babu Nagar, Second Street, Medavakam, Chennai-100, in favour of the complainant under a registered Document No.3654 of 2011, on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Saidapet, South Chennai. Further as the survey number was wrongly mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 06.05.2011 as S.No.472/2A and 2G2 instead of S.No.427/2A and 2G2, the 1^st opposite party had executed a Rectification Deed on 27.05.2011, registered as Document No.4184 of 2011. The 2^nd opposite party, son of the 1^st opposite party introduced himself as a Software Engineer employed in Hyderabad, informed the complainant that in the place of the 1st opposite party, he shall be taking care of all the construction work in the site and shall procure construction materials, employ workers/ labourers etc. The complainant has made payments regularly as per the construction agreement. But the flat was not constructed as per the specifications in the Construction Agreement. The 2nd opposite party by his e-mail dated 04.03.2012 claimed payment of Rs.79,000/- towards delay for the construction of Flat G-1 in the ground floor. Hence, the complainant sent a detailed reply vide e-mail dated 10.03.2012, clearly explaining that the 2^nd opposite party is not entitled to claim any amount alleging delay, since the complainant had already paid additional money to the 1st opposite party. As per sched