Date of filing : 13.04.2017.

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

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT C.C. No.117 of 2017 Monday, the 27^th day of January, 2025

1. J. Charulatha, W/o Raghu Prakash Radhakrishnan, 2. Raghu Prakash Radhakrishnan, S/o. Dr. Radha Krishnan, Both residing at:

No.24000 Elliot Avenue, Apartment No.419, Seattle, Washington State, 98121 USA, Rep. by their Power of Attorney Mrs. P.V.Manimegalai, Residing at R-36, Elango Street, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. … Complainants Vs.

1. M/s. Jain Housing, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sandeep Mehta”

9th Floor, HIGH GATES, No.82, DGS DinakaranSalai, M.R.C. Nagar, Chennai – 600 028.

2. Sandeep Mehta, Managing Partner, M/s. Jain Housing, 9th Floor, HIGH GATES, No.82, DGS DinakaranSalai, M.R.C. Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. ... Opposite Parties.

(Amended as per MP No.57/2019 dt. 15.07.2019)

For Complainants : M/s. J. Saravanavel For Opp. Parties : M/s.K.Kumaran This Complaint came up for final hearing today 27.01.2025 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties and on perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following order in the Open Court:-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH, J-PRESIDENT (Open Court)

This complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as against the Opposite Partiesfor the following reliefs:

a) To direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.30,65,150/- to the complainant together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of payment till date of realization;-

b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service; and c) to pay costs of the complaint.

2. The case of the complainant is that the 1st opposite party is an incorporated company carrying on business in the field of construction and development in and around Chennai for the past several years. Previously, it was a partnership concern carrying on business in the name and style of Jain Housing. The 2nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party claims to have executed several housing projects in and around Chennai comprising of multistoried buildings and gated communities. Believing the advertisements of the opposite parties with respect to a residential project developed by them at Padur, situated on OMR named Inseli Park, the complainant had approached the opposite parties and booked a flat in the proposed complex during January 2007. The complainant had entered into promoters agreement dated 28.02.2007, through her Power of Attorney, Mrs.P.V.Manimegalai. As per the agreement, the opposite parties were assigned the job to construct a flat in the said project and the terms of payment was also arrived upon in the said agreement. Clause 8 specifies the project completion time as 30 months from the date of starting the construction with a grace time of three months from the date of signing the agreement. The opposite parties promised to construct apartments in an area of about 11 acres on the IT corridor with several features. The opposite parties also promised premium specifications in the construction like high quality vitrified tiles, teakwood main door frame, wooden doors, windows with anodized aluminum, spacious kitchen with granite slab, high quality chromium plated fittings and high quality wall painting.

(a) As per the agreement, the sale consideration was fixed as Rs.35,82,120/-. On 28.02.2007, the complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- towards token advance in respect of the Flat marked as No.8, 11th floor, measuring 997 sq. ft. plinth area together with 354.49 undivided share of land and one open car parking. The complainant had obtained loan from the Canara Bank, on 04.04.2007. A sum of Rs.3,08,212/- was paid to the opposite parties on 05.03.2007, being the 10% initial payment. By a letter dated 09.04.