BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Monday, 05th May 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 32 / 2013
Sri M. Guru Sekhar Reddy, S/o M. Muni Reddy, age 47 years,
H.No. 26/598, Vasanthapet, Proddatur – 516 360,
YSR Kadapa District ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1) The Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board,
Kurnool Division, Commercial Complex, Abbasnagar,
Kunrool – 518 002.
2) The Managing Director, A.P. Housing Board,
Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad - 01.
3) The Branch Incharge / Manager, D.T.D.C. Courier Service Ltd.,
Opp. C.V. Raman Boys Hospital, Near Edga, Kalluru Road,
Kurnool – 518 002
4) The Asst. General Manager, D.T.D.C. Courier Ltd.,
Plot No. 6-11, Survey No. 176/2, 176/3, Rathna Cooperative
Society Ltd., Behind Pijja Corner, Opp. Modi Motors,
Secunderabad – 500 009. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 28-4-2014 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri Y.V. Seshaiah, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for O.P.1 and Sri P. Pavan Kumar, Advocate for O.P.3 & 4 and O.P.2 called absent and set exparte on 26-2-2014 and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction from the Opposite parties:-
(a) Direct the opposite parties to allot the plot and the remaining amount will be paid to the opposite parties,
(b) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service,
(c) To pay Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and
(d) To pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
2. The case of the complaint is that, the opposite parties given notification on 31-7-2011 for calling application for the scheme of construction of Phase – V, MIG – 47 at Proddatur for allotment plot. The complainant made an application and paid amount Rs. 15,000/- on 28-10-2010 and the same is received by the opposite parties.
3. The complainant further stated that the O.P.’s intimated to the complainant by the way of letter on 21-11-2011 that the complainant should pay of 10% i.e. Rs. 1,50,800/- on plot value i.e. notifying cost Rs. 16,59,000/-. The complainant received said letter by D.T.D.C courtier service on 28-4-2012. After receiving the letter the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,800/- by way of demand draft on 22-5-2012.
4. It is further stated that the opposite parties issued a letter to the complainant on 2-6-2012 and returned demand draft and his application is cancelled. The complainant issued legal notice to the O.P.1 on 28-6-2012, the opposite parties returned an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for application and stated that the plot is not allotted. Hence, this complaint is filed.
5. The O.P.1 filed a counter and admitted that the complainant has applied for allotment of plot of MIG House in the proposed of Housing scheme under 5th Phase at Proddatur in response D/s Notification No. 003/EE(h)/KNL/10, dt. 31-7-2010 and paid amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards name registration fee and his application was registered vide application No. 1252 and the A.P. Housing board has decided to ascertain the actual demand and asked all the applicants who have registered their applications with A.P. Housing Board to pay 10% cost by remitting the same in E-seva center nearer to them, within one month by last date fixed 20-11-2011 from the date of intimation letters and all letters were dispatched through D.T.D.C Courier service. But the complainant has not responded intime and paid 10% cos of Rs. 1,50,800/- by the way of Demand Draft in favour of Executive Engineer (HG), A.P. Housing Board, Kurnool vide D.D. bearing No. 150966, dt. 23-5-2013 instead of remitting the same in E-Seva on or before 20-12-2011. Hence, the D.D. for Rs. 1,50,800/- has returned to the complainant through R.P.A.D duly informing the acceptance of 10% cost through E-seva was closed by 20-12-2011 and same was informed to him in response to the legal notice given by him after informing the above facts requested to complainant apply for refund with received documents. So as to return the registration fee. But there is no response from the complainant finally to avoid further delay. The refund of name registration fee has been arranged to the complainant by the way of cheque bearing No. 051236, dt. 29-11-2012 and the same has encashed by the complainant on 24-01-2013 without protest.
6. It is further stated that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act 1986. As he has neither purchased any “goods” nor hired or avail any “service” for consideration from the opposite parties and a house being an immovable property is not covered by the definition of the “goods” in section 2 (1) (i) of the C.P. Act 1986 R/w section 2 of the sale of goods 1930. There is not transaction of providing of any service the complainant is not a consumer under section 2 (1) (d) (ii). Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.
7. The O.P.2 called absent and set exparte on 26-2-2014.
8. The O.P.3 and 4 filed counter and denying all the allegations made by the complainant and stated that the entire allegations in this complaint are against the O.P. No. 1 and 2 only. It is further stated that the O.P.3 & 4 are concerned with only one transaction i.e. the O.P. 1 is booked a courier on 25-11-2011 Friday at C-Camp Branch, Kurnool with shipment No. H92595028 to this complaint to Jammalamadugu and it is delivered on the next day i.e. 26-11-2011 Saturday at 10.50 a.m to his residence without any delay and there are no negligence or deficiency on the part these opposite parties.
9. To prove his case the complainant filed affidavit along with documents and got marked Ex. A1 to A7. To disprove the case the O.P.1 & 2 filed documents and got marked Ex. B1 to B3 and O.P.3 & 4 filed document and got marked Ex. B4.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of their opposite party?
- To what relief?
11. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The contention of the complainant is that as per the notification of the opposite parties the complainant applied and paid registration fee of Rs. 15,000/- on 28-10-2010 for aforesaid Housing scheme and the same is received by the Opposite parties and they intimated that the complainant should pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,800/- i.e. 10% plot of Rs. 16,59,000/-. The complainant received said intimation letter on 28-4-2012 by D.T.D.C Courier service. After receiving the said initiation the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,800/- by way of Demand draft on 22-5-2012. The complainant received a letter from opposite parties on 2-6-2012 stating that the application of the complainant is cancelled and returned demand draft to the complainant. After that the complainant got issued legal notice on 28-6-2012.
12. The contention of the O.P.1 is the complainant is not a consumer as the transaction pertains to immovable property the relation between the complainant and opposite parties related to Specific Performance Act 1983 in the contract act 1872. In this matter the complainant approached the O.P.1 notification to apply construction Phase No. 5, MIG – 47, Housing at Proddatur under Ex. A1. The complainant applied aforesaid scheme and paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 28-8-2010 and registered his name as Ex. A2. The housing activities are included C.P. Act in the year 1983. Hence, viewing section (3) of consumer protection act, we concluded that as the complainant entered into agreement for purchasing aforesaid plot from the opposite parties under Ex. A1 & A2 the complainant as a consumer within the definition of section 2 clause (1) (d) of the C.P. Act.
13. The further contention of the O.P. 1 is that the A.P. Housing Board has decided to ascertain the actual demand and asked all the applicants, who have registered their applications with the A.P. Housing board to pay 10% cost by remitting the same in any E-sava center nearest to them within one month by last date as fixed 20-11-2011 from the date of intimation letter and all letters were dispatched through D.T.D.C courier service. But the complainant has not responded in time and paid 10% cost i.e. Rs. 1,50,800/- by way of D.D. on 23-5-2013 instead of remitting the same in E-seva on or before 20-12-2011 instead of remitting the same in E-seva on or before 20-12-20111. Hence, the D.D. for Rs. 1,50,800/- has been returned to the complainant through R..P.A.D.
14. The contention of the complainant is that the complainant received intimation letter from O.P. 1 by DTDC courier service on 28-11-2012 and paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,800/- by way of D.D. On 22-5-2012. Hence, they have not done any mistake.
15. On the other hand the O.P. 3 & 4 stated that the O.P. 3 & 4 are concerned with only one transaction i.e. the O.P. 1 is booked a courier on 25-11-2011 Friday at C Camp branch, Kurnool with shipment No. H 92595028 to this complainant to Jammalamadugu and it is delivered on the next day i.e. 26-11-2011 Saturday at 10.50 a.m to this residence without any delay. As seen from Ex. A3 it is clear that the O.P. 1 sent a letter dt. 21-11-2011 booked on 25-11-2011 through D.T.D.C courier service. As seen from Ex. B4 i.e. internet track report the O.P. 3 & 4 delivered next day on 26-11-2011. As per Ex. A5 i.e. DTDC service delivery run sheet it clearly shows that, it is delivered to the complainant on 28-4-2012. After receiving the intimation letter complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,800/- to the O.P. 1 by way of D.D. instead of E-sava. Because the delivery of intimation letter was delayed. In these circumstances Ex. A5 DTDC service delivery run sheet report is conclusive proof. The O.P. 3 & 4 failed to disprove credibility of the delivery report.
16. As seen from Ex. A3 it is clear that the O.P’s intimated to the complainant on 21-11-2011 the complainant should pay 10% i.e. an amount of Rs. 1,50,800/- towards notified cost of Rs. 16,58,000/- paid with an application by 20-12-2011 through E-seva and also seen Ex. A4 letter issued by O.P. No. 1. Stated that the complainant not responded as Ex. A3 i.e. intimation letter. Hence, the Opposite parties cancelled the application of the complainant and returned the said amount paid by the complainant there is no mistake upon the O.P. 1 & 2 as per the above circumstances the O.P.1 proved, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2.
17. Hence, the above circumstances and discussion of the case the complainant proved deficiency of service on the part of O.P. 3 & 4 and there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P. 1 & 2. Hence, we are of the opinion that the O.P. 3 & 4 are liable to pay compensation.
18. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the O.P.3 & 4 to pay compensation for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only), to pay cost of complaint Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), within 45 days of date of receipt of orders. The case against O.P.1 & 2 dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 5th May 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 Advertisement issued by the Housing Board, Hyderabad dt. 31-7-2010.
Ex. A2 Receipt for allotment of House D.D. No. 242608, dt. 28-8-2010 for
Rs. 15,300/-
Ex. A3 Letter received from O/o the Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board
Kunrool, called upon to pay 10% amount on notified amount.
Ex. A4 Letter received from the O/o the Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board,
Kurnool to returned the 10% amount as it was not received in time by the
Complainant.
Ex. A5 P/c of D.T.D.C duplicate receipt copy.
Ex. A6 Legal notice issued by the advocate on 28-6-2012 to the respondents.
Ex. A7 Reply notice issued by the Respondent No. 1, dt. 16-7-2012.
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties : -
Ex. B1 Letter addressed by the A.P. Housing Board to Guru Sekhar Reddy,
dt. 2-6-2012 (attested copy).
Ex. B2 Reply letter A.P. Housing Board to legal notice of the complainant
dt. 16-7-2012 (attested copy).
Ex. B3 Dispatch Register of A.P. Housing Board, Kurnool (attested copy).
Ex. B4 On line tracking copy of DTDC.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
- Sri Y.V. Seshaiah, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for O.P.1
- Sri P. Pavan Kumar, Advocate for O.P. 3 & 4.
- The Managing Director, A.P. Housing Board,
Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad - 01.
B.V.P. - - -
