BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 7th day of February, 2006
C.C.No.155/2005
J.D. Prabhakar, J.D. J. John, Aged 56 Years,
H.No. 46/110-1, Budhawarapeta, Kurnool-12.
. . . Complainant
-Vs
1. Chief Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board,
Gruhakalpa - M.J. Road, Hyderabad.
2. Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board,
Abbas Nagar, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming 6.2.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri R. Murali Krishna, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri P. Sivasudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and 2 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Complaint of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay interest from 4-11-2002 to 2-7-2005 on principle amount of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, Rs.1,000/- as costs and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant being attracted to the notification dated 27-9-2002 issued by the opposite party, enrolled his name for HIG-I and MIG-II with opposite parties by submitting an application form dated 1-11-2002 along with demand drafts of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- bearing Nos. 4370400 and 392671. Even after 32 months the opposite parties did not commenced the construction of said houses and on requests the opposite parties did not answer properly and further stated that the rate of construction will be enhanced as to present day. Hence, the complainant requested the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.15,000/- with interest but the opposite parties paid only Rs.15,000/- i.e without interest. The complainant there after requested the opposite parties through several letters to pay interest on said amount but the opposite parties did not care to respond. Hence, the complainant has to approach the Forum for redressal.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz. (1) A.P. Housing Board notification dated 27-9-2000 and (2) Letter dated 16-7-2005 of complainant addressed to opposite party No.1, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 and A2 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and opposite party No.2 filed written version and opposite party No.1 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2.
5. The written version of opposite parties questions the maintainability of the complainant’s case either in law or on facts and submits that the dispute regarding the price of the House/Flat/Plot by opposite parties is not a consumer dispute and there is neither the purchase of any goods nor availed of any services for consideration from the opposite parties and the amount paid by the complainant is for sale of immovable property. Therefore, the transaction between the complainant and opposite parties is not a consumer dispute. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. But it admits that the land owners have filed a case for higher compensation for the land acquired by the housing board and the same was informed to the complainant stating that the cost of the plot will be higher than mentioned in the notification. There after, the complainant in his application dated 31-5-2005 has requested the opposite parties for refund of amount paid by him as to the construction of houses are being delayed and the said amount was paid to the complainant on 4-7-2005 and the complainant accepted the said amount without any protest, and the complainant never requested to pay interest on the said amount. The complainant having accepted all the terms and conditions of A.P. Housing Board has signed the application form. Hence, this case of the complainant is vexatious for wrongful gain and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The opposite parties in support of their case relied on the following documents viz. (1) Letter dated 31-5-2005 of complainant addressed to opposite party No.2 claiming for return of Rs.5,000/- and (2) Letter dated 31-5-2005 of complainant addressed to opposite party No.2 claiming for return of Rs.10,000/-, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 and B2 for its appreciation in this case.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
8. It is a case of the complainant seeking payment of interest on the principle amount of Rs.15,000/- paid by him to opposite parties to enroll his name for HIG-I and MIG-II plots of opposite parties, as the construction was delayed and the rate of construction was increased the complainant requested for return of Rs.15,000/- through letters dated 31-5-2005 vide Ex.B1 and B2. After receipt of said letters as to the request for return of Rs.15,000/- paid by the complainant the opposite parties on 4-7-2005 paid the said amount to the complainant and the complainant received the said amount without any protest. The complainant in this case alleges that he is entitled to receive interest on the said amount of Rs.15,000/-, but in the absence of any material on record in support of supra stated contentions of the complainant as to his entitleness for interest on said E.M.D amount, subsequent, to the receipt of said E.M.D amount, the said claim for interest on Rs.15,000/-does’nt arise and the same is rejected. Hence, the said request of the complainant claiming interest on Rs.15,000/- consists any bonafidies. Therefore, what follows is that the complainant is not entitled to claim interest on Rs.15,000/- and there appears every bonafidies on part of opposite parties in rejecting the claim of the complainant as to the payment of interest on Rs.15,000/-.
9. To sum up of the above discussions, the claim of the complainant is not substantiated by any relevant cogent material, hence, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed for want of merit and force.
10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 7th day of February, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 A.P. Housing Board notification dated 27.9.2000.
Ex A.2 Letter dated 16.7.2005 of complainant addressed to opposite party
No.1.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Letter dated 31.5.2005 of complainant addressed to opposite party
No.2 claiming for return of Rs..5,000/-.
Ex B2 Letter dated 31.5.2005 of complainant addressed to opposite party No.2
claiming for return of Rs.10,000/-
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri R. Murali Krishna, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri P. Sivasudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
