BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.666/2011 against C.C.No.89/2010, Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist.
Between:
K.S.Murthy,
S/o.Late Satyanarayana Murthy,
Aged about 67 years,
Occ:Retd. Sub Postmaster,
R/o.Flat No.501, 17, Sneha Enclave,
Plot no.196,
West Maredpalli,
Secunderabd 500 026. … Appellant/
Complainant
And
1. M/s.Central Government Employees
Housing Organisation, Ministry of Urban Development and
Poverty Alleviation, Rep. by its M.D. 6th Floor, A Wing, Janapath Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001.
2. M/s. Central Government Employees Housing
Organisation, Ministry of Urban Development and
Poverty Alleviation, Rep. by its Chief Executive
Officer, L.Jagannadh OR P.D., Kindriya Vihar – III,
Hydershah Kote ( V ) , Mehdipatnam,
R.R.District. (Branch Office) …Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. S.T.Basha
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.S.Prabhakar Reddy
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
And
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH,
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN .
Oral Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member).
***
This appeal is directed against the order dt. 8.6.2011, in C.C.No.89/2010, on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist. The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties .
For the sake of convenience the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant is a retired postal employee and on repeated requests made by the agents of the opposite party, he booked a plot(type B Dwelling unit) in survey no.42/2 part, Phase III in ‘Hyderabad Housing Scheme Phase III’ situated at Hydershah Kote, Mehdipatnam R.R.Dist., on 23.2.2006 with the opp.party for a sum of Rs.8,35,800/-. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.60,200/- and the officials of opposite party acknowledged the same and issued membership letter dt.10.5.2006 in favour of the complainant. The complainant was allotted membership number HABO254. At the time of booking the plot, the opp.party stated that the instalments shall be paid after completion of the stage wise development. Opp.party never informed anything to the complainant, regarding the development and registration and has been postponing the same, whenever asked by the complainant. The complainant had got issued a legal notice on 10.1.2010, stating that the development must be shown to him and he is ready to pay the stage wise amount, for the stage wise development, for which the opposite party has not responded, but instead the opp.party had issued a letter dt.4.5.2010 stating that the complainant’s membership will be cancelled, if the hiked prices for registering of the plot, not paid within a month. On 1.6.2010 the complainant got issued notice to the opp.parties through speed post and a telegram was also sent by him on 2.6.2010, not to cancel the membership till the disposal of the main complaint. Hence the complaint seeking direction to opposite party to register the plot in favour of the complainant after receiving the remaining amount of Rs.7,75,800/-, in the alternative where the registration is cannot be allowed to the complainant, the cost of the plot Rs.60,200/- along with 18% interest from 23.2.2006 till the date of the disposal of the complaint may be awarded and to award compensation of Rs.5000/-and to pay costs of the complaint.
Opposite parties filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and contended that their organization is an autonomous body of the Government of India, which is formed for the welfare of Central Government Employees, which run on no profit and no loss basis and as such, the question of appointing agents and booking the plot through their agents does not arise at all. As per the terms of the agreement, the cost of the plot is Rs.10,45,000/- as on the date. As per the schedule mentioned in CGEWHO Scheme brochure, the development work of the property was in progress. The complainant did not pay the sale consideration to the opp.parties, as per the schedule mentioned in the application. The opp.parties nowhere stated that the complainant need not pay the escalation of the amount for the development work. The complainant is liable to pay the hiked price by the opp.parties and the same was clearly mentioned in Page no.9 in Column 16 of the CGEWHO Scheme brochure. The opp.parties made several reminders to the complainant, to pay the instalments, for which the complainant not responded and the opp.parties are constrained to cancel the membership of the complainant. The complainant, instead of paying the instalments, approached the Forum and filed the complaint.
The opp.parties reserve their right to terminate the registration and cancellation of the allotment, without giving any further notice, in case of default in making the schedule payment, beyond 120 days from the last day of the payment. At page no.10 Col.19 it is mentioned that the CGEWHO will make every effort to indicate the price of the dwelling unit as accurately as possible, but the cost may vary and the adjustments in the payments and schedule may become necessary to commensurate with the progress of the construction. The opposite parties further submit that they issued several notices demanding the complainant to pay the amount as per the schedule and issued final notice to the complainant. As on the date of final cancellation notice, the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.11,61,800/-. Inspite of receiving the final notice, the complainant neither came forward nor got registered the flat and the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. The opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 and opposite parties filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B9
The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced and pleadings put forward, partly allowed the complaint directing the complainant to submit the original allotment letter, original receipts issued by opp.parties and receipt in attached form with signature on one rupee revenue stamp and on furnishing the above documents, the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount after deducting the necessary charges for cancellation. The complainant must submit the above documents within one month from the date of this order and opp.parties shall refund the amount after deducting necessary charges within one month from the date of receipt of the above documents from the complainant.
Aggrieved by the said order. the complainant preferred this appeal stating that the order of the District Forum is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Dist. Forum did not consider the fact that the complainant was ready to pay a sum of Rs.7,75,800/- as per the agreement. The Dist. Forum did not take into consideration, that the respondent itself stated, that as per Column 18 in page no.10, the members, who are late in paying their instalments, can pay the same with interest @ 15% p.a. from their respective dates of instalments, towards the equalization charges. The Dist. Forum did not appreciate the fact that the respondent never placed before the Forum, the stage of the project undertaken by it. The appellant prayed to set aside the impugned order of the District Forum.
We heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is an admitted fact that the complainant being a retired postal employee booked a dwelling unit in Survey no. 42/2 part, Phase III situated at Hydershah Kote, Mehdipatnam R.R.Dist vide Ex.A5, with the opposite party, for the value of Rs.8,35,000/- towards the cost of the property. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant paid Rs.60,200/- and he was allotted number HAB 0254. The complainant has agreed to pay the instalments after completion of stage wise development, by the opposite parties. It is also an admitted fact that except Rs.60,200/-, the complainant did not pay even single instalment, as per the terms and conditions. In Ex.A5 itself there is a mention that the complainant has to make payments in six instalments and also specifically mentioned what is the amount of the instalment and the date on which the instalment to be paid, for a particular period. As seen from Ex.A5, a specific demand was made by the opposite parties, asking the complainant to pay Rs.2,53,300/- on or before 30.6.2006. But the complainant is silent as to whether he made the said payment or not.
The contention of the opposite parties is that they have written many letters to the complainant, requesting him to pay the amounts, as per the schedule and inspite of receipt of the letters, the complainant has not made the payments. In support of their contention, the opposite parties have filed Exs.B2, B4,B6 and B8 which are the copies of notices got issued by them to the complainant and Exs.B3, B5,B7 which are the speed post booking leaves, to prove that those letters are sent by post, by the opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant though admitted, receipt of Ex.A5 dt 10.5.2006 and Ex.A7 letter dt.4.5.2010, but denied receipt of other letters, sent to him by the opposite parties. Admittedly, the complainant did not respond to Ex.B2, B4, B6 and B8 notices.
As seen from the brochure and also as seen from the demands made by the opp.parties, the complainant is bound to make payments as per the schedule, but admittedly the complainant did not pay even a single instalment, after the first payment of Rs.60,200/-. Non payment of instalments in time by an allottee, gives a right to the opposite party, to cancel the allotment itself. Inspite of receipt of the letters written by the opp.parties, the complainant failed to pay the amounts. The complainant slept over the matter for 3 years and got issued legal notice on 10.1.2010 vide Ex.A6 for which, opposite parties have issued a reply under Ex.B8, but for the reasons best known to the complainant he did not file the said reply notice. Under Ex.B8 reply also, the complainant was informed that unless he pay the entire amount, they would cancel the allotment and proceed as per the rules. As per the rules of the opposite parties and as seen from Ex.B1 Brochure, the allotment would be cancelled, if the payments were not made as per the schedule. It is not the case of the complainant that he had no knowledge of the terms and conditions and rules of the opposite party.
During the course of appeal, the appellant filed a petition to receive the paper article of Times of India dt.16.11.2010, as additional evidence, in this matter and the said petition was allowed and the document was received and marked as Ex.A10 subject to proof and relevancy. We do not think that Ex.A10 improves the case of the complainant, in any manner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, in our opinion there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Apart from that, opposite party itself requested the complainant to send the document, so that it can refund the amount after deduction of the cancellation charges and other charges applicable. For this request letter also, the complainant has not given any reply. Therefore we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the District Forum to interfere with it. Hence the appeal fails.
In the result appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, but in the circumstances of the case without costs.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Dt. 28.3.2013
Pm*
