O. P. No. 127 of 1991. Case: M.K.S. Balasubramanian Vs Jayalakshmi Planners - 06 Dec 1991.
| Case Number | O. P. No. 127 of 1991 |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: Mr. Sriram Punchu and Mr. N.L. Rajah and and For the Respondent: Mr. P. S. Ethirajan and Miss. V. Radhai |
| Judges | Mr. S. A. Kader, President and Mr. Thiru M. N. Manickam, l.P.S., Rtd. and Dr. Ramani Mathur-anayagam, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act - Sections 12, 17; Negotiable InÂstruments (Amendment) Act - Section 138 |
| Judgement Date | December 06, 1991 |
Order:
S. A. Kader, President (At Madras)
-
This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of die Consumer Protection Act.
-
The brief facts of the case of the complaint are these: The opposite party is a builder of flats. It allotted a flat on the first floor in the complex to be constructed at Thiruvenkadam Street, West Mambalam to the complainant at the rate of Rs. 312/'- per sq. ft. The complainant paid Rs. 20,000/-on 13.1.1988, Rs. 10,000/-on 20.4.1988, Rs. 10.000/-on 23.4.1988, Rs. 8,000/-on 31.8.1988 and Rs. 22,000/- on 6.10.1988 in all Rs. 70.000/-. On 5.12.1988 the complainant was informed that the construction was completed, but he found that instead of a flat on the first floor as agreed to, the opposite party offered him a flat on the ground floor which the complainant refused to accept. After much persuation the complainant agreed to receive the sum of Rs. 70,000/- paid by him and the opposite party issued three cheques dated 13.6.1989, 21.6.1989 and 2.7.1989 for the aforesaid sums, but the cheques were dishonoured. The opposite party not only failed to allot him a flat in the first floor as promised, but also to return the money. Hence the complaint. The complainant claims refund of the said sum of Rs. 70,000/-interest thereon at 18% and Rs. 10,000/- for anxiety and mental strain.
-
The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer. It is also further contended that the claim is below one lakh and the complaint must therefore have been filed before the District Forum. The next contention advanced is that the complainant has filed a criminal complaint in C.C. No. 12337/89 before the XVIII M. M. Saidapet under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act for the dishonouring of the cheques and the opposite party has filed Criminal M. P. No. 16805/89 in the High Court for quashing the proceedings and obtained a stay. This complaint is not therefore maintainable. On merits the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party failed to pay the money in lime. The tentative cost was Rs. 1,76,500/- and it was agreed that the complainant should pay advance payment of Rs. 95,000/- covering the cost of the proportionate share of the land and an advance for basement work immediately and make further amount in instalments as fixed. But the complainant wilfully failed and neglected to pay the further amounts excepting Rs. 70,000/-. There was therefore no default or deficiency on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial