AT HYDERABAD.

   80  of 2012  

Between:

1) 

S/o.   

2)  Smt. W/o. C. Krishna

Rep. by their GPA

Chaganti S/o.    C.

R/o. 66-9-3/1B,

Kamalendranath Street

Narsanna Nagar, Kakinada Dist.                ***                         Complainants  

And

1)  M/s. Golden Gate Properties Ltd.

IIIrd Floor, V.V. Vintage

Bouleyard,

Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

Rep. by its Managing Director

Kunda

2)  S/o. K. Managing Director.

M/s. Golden Gate Properties Ltd.

IIIrd Floor, V.V. Vintage

Bouleyard,

Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

3)  Sanjay    Whole-time Director

M/s. Golden Gate Properties Ltd.

IIIrd Floor, V.V. Vintage

Bouleyard,

Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

4) 

Director, M/s. Golden Gate Properties Ltd.

IIIrd Floor, V.V. Vintage

Bouleyard,

Somajiguda, Hyderabad.                             ***                        Opposite Parties  

Counsel for the                 M/s.  K.

Counsel for                  D.

CORAM:

                             SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER

&

                             SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF   TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Oral Order: Smt. M.

                                                          ***

1)                 The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the   opted to purchase a villa from Ops  for an amount of   and paid    village in  their venture Golden County.  The complainants  the  dates and details of payments as follows :

          1.         drawn on HSBC bank                                85,000/-

          2.         drawn on HSBC bank                         

          3.       17.1.2007 drawn on HSBC bank                            5                                                                                                --------------------

                                                                                                --------------------

The complainants  that they  asked for the relevant approvals and title documents when the Ops  did not furnish the same and even after 1-1/2 years of its purchase there was no development and the complainants corresponded with    one    by way of e-mails on 4.3.2009,  22.6.2009, 24.7.2009, 14.10.2009, 8.11.2009, 9.11.2009 and lastly on 7.12.2010. The  got issued a legal notice on 29.12.2010 calling upon Ops to construct the villa or to refund the amount but they  did not receive any response,   Thereafter on 10.1.2011  Op1 promised to refund the amount of   for  but did not pay the remaining instalments.  Hence this complaint seeking for a direction to Ops to refund  compensation and costs.

2)                 Ops filed their written version denying that they have represented to the  that they have acquired the approvals for floating  the  venture to sell their villas.   The project site is located   to the Outer Ring Road (ORR)  and due to frequent changes to its alignment, the project planning could not be materialised and the delays were purely technical and they were beyond the control of the Ops.  The  were well aware that it was only a pre-launch offer and there was no inducement  and they clearly admit that there were no approvals  at that point of time.  They also admit as to receiving of legal notice   The complainants   claiming interest and compensation  this amount is unjustified as the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and that  the Ops are under serious financial crunch, and submit that the complainants claiming interest  at    60,417/- on the already refunded amount of    Therefore they pray for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

3)                The complainants filed their affidavits by way of evidence   Ex. A1 to A19 are marked on their behalf.  The Ops also filed their affidavits by way of evidence   did not choose to file any documents. 

4)                The brief point that falls for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service  behalf of Ops and whether the complainants are  entitled to the reliefs sought for in the complaint?

5)                The facts not in dispute are that the complainants paid an amount of  as an advance to the Ops  for 450   and an independent villa for which the total sale consideration was     cheques  and  of   made on 3.1.2007  and  17.1.2007   respectively.   

Ex. A8 is the legal notice got issued by the complainants calling upon Ops to refund the amount paid by   It is the  case that the project has not  taken off and the development has not been completed and  that the Ops do not have the  appropriate  approvals and sanctions and therefore sought for refund of their advance amount.    vide cheque   refunded   Now it is the complainants prayer to refund  balance amount with interest and compensation. 

6)                 The contention of Ops is   there is no deficiency in service  on their behalf.    Keeping in view their own admission in the written version that there were no approvals at the point   time of accepting the advance amount from the complainants, and that the admitted delay in development and construction is only because of technical reasons as the project site is close to ORR and that there were frequent changes in the alignment of ORR project,  we are  of the opinion  that  approvals at the time of sale of  plots were not acquired.     

7)                Ex.   are the bunch of e-mails between 30.7.2008 and 10.1.2011 for a period of almost two and half years when the complainants were  constantly pursuing the matter. 

8)                We rely on the judgment of Apex court in M/s.   reported in CDJ 2012 SC 370  in which the

“The case involving offer of plots for sale to its customers/members with an assurance of development of infrastructure/amenities, lay-out approvals etc. was a ‘service’ within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act and would, therefore, be amenable to the jurisdiction of the

Therefore the case on  falls within the  purview of the Consumer Protection Act  and selling of plots/villas  without approvals, appropriate  sanctions amounts  to deficiency in service. 

9)                The complainants have paid an  of  hope that the Ops would complete the venture on time, and the  Ops are themselves admitting that they have accepted the advance and that there were no approvals at that point of time and also admitted that the project was delayed due to technical reasons  and therefore we are of the considered view that  the complainants are  entitled to refund of the amount.    It is also pertinent to note that the Ops have refunded  28.1.2011 therefore  the complainants are  entitled to refund of balance of   As interest has already been awarded by way of   and  in the interest of justice,  we do not deem it a fit case  to also award  further compensation

10)               In the result this  complaint is allowed  in part directing the  opposite parties  jointly and severally to refund    

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDING MEMBER 

2)           ________________________________

MEMBER  

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

COMPLAINANTS                                                                            OPPOSITE PARTIES

None                                                                                                                            

Documents marked for complainants:

Ex  A1             03.01.2007      Cheque for

Ex. A2             03.01.2007      Cheque for

of Ops.

Ex. A3             17.01.2007      Cheque for

Ex. A4             17.01.2007      Receipt issued by Ops for   in favour of complainant

Ex. A5             17.01.2007      Receipt for   issued by Ops in favour of

Ex A6              17.01.2007      Receipt for   issued by Ops in favour of

Ex  A7             30.07.2008      Bunch of e-mails  exchanged between the parties.

Ex  A8             29.12.2010      Legal notice got issued by the complainant to Ops.

Ex. A9             03.01.2011      Photostat copy of postal ack.

Ex. A10           10.01.2011      Letter of Ops to complainant

Ex. A11           28.01.2011      Photostat copy of cheque issued by Ops for

Ex. A12                 ---              Photostat copy of courier cover.

Ex. A13           03.03.2011      Letter addressed by complainant to Ops.

Ex. A14                 ---              Photostat copy of postal ack.

Ex. A15                 ---              Photostat copy of postal ack.

Ex. A16                 ---              Photostat copy of RLAD receipt.

Ex. A17           12.06.2012      GPA executed by complainant in favour of Ex. A18           28.09.1995      Certificate of incorporation of Op company. 

Ex. A19                  ---             List of directors of Op

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR OPs:                      Nil

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDING MEMBER 

2)      ________________________________

MEMBER  

22/03/2013

*

UP LOAD – O.K.