BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

C.C.No.269/2013

Between:

B.Venkataiah

S/o.Chinnaiah, aged about 43 years,

Occ:Contractor, R/o.H.No.J-114/3

Road No.2, Durgabhavaninagar,

Filmnagar, Hyderabad.                                                                                                 Complainant

        And

M/s. City Line Estates Pvt. Ltd.,

Office address:H.No.24A,

Flat No.5A, Nandanavanam

Behind S.R.Nagar Bus stop
Hyderabad-38. Rep. by its

Chief Managing Director

(CMD) Y.H.Suresh Babu.

Y.Suresh Babu,

S/o.Hanumaiah, aged about 40 years,

Chief Managing Director (CMD)

M/s. City Line Estates Pvt. Ltd.,

R/o.office, 118, 1st floor, Lal Bungalow

Greenlands, Ameerpet,

Sri M.Rama Seshagiri Rao

S/o.Nagabhushanam, aged about 71 years,

Occupation Business, R/o.H.No.24 A

Flat No.5A, Nandanavanam, Behind

SR Nagar Bus Stop, Hyderabad-38.

Yanamandala Sai Balaji

S/o.Hanumaiah, aged about 65 years,

Occ:Business, R/o.Plot  No.16,

Balaji Colony, Meerpet, Hyderabad.

Premchand,

S/o.Sambasiva Rao,

Aged about 30 years,

R/o.H.No.24 A

Flat No.5A, Nandanavanam, Behind

SR Nagar Bus Stop, Hyderabad-38.                                                                ..Opposite parties 1 to 5

Counsel for the  complainant: M/s Y.Balaji

Counsel for the opposite parties:- served through substitute service.

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

Oral Order (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalaKrishna Tamada, President)

***

        The complainant by name Mr.B.Venkataiah, filed the present complaint seeking refund of a sum of Rs.21,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of final payment  i.e. 15-4-2007 till the date of realization i.e. an amount of Rs.25,18,125/- and in total, he claimed an amount of Rs.46,43,125/- with further interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of realization and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards inconvenience, hardship and mental agony together with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

        The case of the complainant as per the complaint filed U/s.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that the opposite parties are developers and developed a layout in the name and style of “Shirdi Nivas” by its company “M/s City Line Estates Pvt. Ltd., at Nagaram Village, Maheshwaram Mandal Ranga Reddy District.  In that regard they purchased an extent of Ac.5-00 of land converted the same into house plots and represented that they will develop roads and drainage facility, electricity facility and also provide amenities like Black Top Roads, underground drainage, electricity, compound wall with solar finishing, club house with swimming pool, avenue plantation, round the clock security (CC TV and watch tower) water services with RO system, water purification plant, cabling and generator back up, Broadband connectivity, jogging tack, polyclinic/convenience store, intercom facility, Library, party hall, cafe, Guest rooms, AC Gym  & Spa, Children Recreation Zone, Tennis, Squash and indoor badminton etc. .  Being attracted by the said project and posing confidence, the complainant intended to purchase a plot i.e. Plot No.3 admeasuring 484 sq. yds. in Survey Nos.59, 68 and 69 at the rate of Rs.5300/- per sq. yd. for a total sale consideration of Rs.25,65,200/-. 

        The complainant paid an amount  of Rs.5,00,000/- on 13-11-2006 vide receipt No.137 and booked the same.  Thereafter he paid an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- on 16-11-2006 and both the parties entered into Agreement of sale on the very same day. Subsequent to the agreement of sale on different dates, the complainant paid amounts and obtained receipts for some amounts and the total sale consideration that was paid by the complainant as on 15-4-2007 was Rs.21,25,000/- and the balance which has to be paid by the complainant was only Rs.4,40,200/-.  On 20-4-2007 the complainant requested the opposite parties to receive the balance sale consideration and register the plot but the opposite parties have not come forward to register the plot in favour of the complainant.  After repeated requests and persuasion, opposite party No.4 had come forward to register an extent of 1000 sq. yds. in favour of the complainant in Shirdi Nivas on or before 31st March, 2012 and accordingly entered into an Memorandum of Undertaking on 05-11-2012.  It is the case of the complainant that because he is an uneducated, they have mentioned wrong dates to mislead him and also failed to register the plot even after completion of MOU period  and he was shocked to know that Plot No.3 is already sold to one Mr.Movva Purnachandra Rao vide registered document No.24301/2006 dated 18-11-2006 with an intention to cheat the complainant.  On 27-7-2013 the complainant requested the opposite parties to return his money along with interest but they did not choose to do so. Therefore the complainant approached the Police and gave a complaint at Maheswaram and a case was registered vide F.I.R. against opposite parties 2 and 3 vide crime No.165/2013.  The complainant submitted that opposite party No.2 approached the Hon’ble High Court and filed Bail Petition for Anticipatory bail and he admitted before the Court that he will pay the entire amount within one month but failed to do so hence the High court dismissed the petition.   Therefore the complainant was constrained to approach this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid with interest, compensation and costs.

        This Commission while admitting the case issued notices to the opposite parties and as the said notices returned unserved, we directed the counsel for the complainant to take out substitute service and accordingly the complainant got the said notices published in Visalandra Newspaper dated 23-3-20143 and filed proof of publication.  Despite the said fact, the opposite parties have not chosen to put in their appearance.  In those circumstances, this Commission was constrained to set the opposite parties exparte and posted the matter for hearing.

     The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint in the chief affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant and relied on Exs.A1 to A5.  Ex.A1 is the Agreement of Sale dated 16-11-2006, Ex.A2 is the Memorandum of Understanding dated 05-1-2012, Ex.A3 are receipts of different dates from 13-11-2006 to 15-4-2007, Encumbrance certificate dated 31-10-2013 is marked as Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 is the Sale Deed executed in between the Opposite parties and another prospective purchaser i.e. Movva Purna Chandra Rao in respect of Plot No.3 promised to be sold to the complainant.

        Having considered the entire material, particularly the documents, we are of the considered view that the complainant has parted with an amount of Rs.21,25,000/- as evidenced by receipts and some amount by cash and as the plot which was offered to be sold to him was sold to another person and the possession of the same was not given to him inspite of receiving an amount of Rs.21,25,000/-.  In our considered view, the said act on the part of the opposite parties in not handing over possession of the said plot as per the agreement of sale or Memorandum of Understanding within the time stipulated amounts to deficiency of service and in those circumstances, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him.  However, we are not inclined to accept the rate of interest quoted by the complainant and in those circumstances, we direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.21,25,000/- which was paid by the complainant  as evidenced by the receipts with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of last payment i.e. 15-4-2007 till the date of realization. Apparently the said agreement was entered into between the parties as early as in the year 2006 that was on 16-11-2006 i.e. about 8 years back and therefore we are constrained to award a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the hardship and mental agony together with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

        Accordingly this complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.21,25,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of last payment i.e. 15-4-2007 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

                                                                                                                                        Sd/-PRESIDENT.                                                 

                                                                                                                                Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                                             Dt.25-4-2014.

                        //APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

                                WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainants:                                                        For Opp.parties:

Affidavit of the complainant filed.                                           nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainants:

Ex. A1:        Photocopy of sale Agreement dated 16-11-2006

Ex. A2:        MOU dated 05-1-2012

EX. A3:        Receipts.

Ex. A4:        Encumbrance certificate dated 31-10-2013.

Ex. A5:        Sale deed dated 18-11-2006.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the opposite parties:

-Nil-

Sd/-PRESIDENT.                                 

                                                                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                                     Dt.25-4-2014.