This complaint coming up before us for hearing on                      23-11-11 in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana, advocate for complainant and of Sri Chaganti Narasimha Reddy, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:     

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking directions on the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,99,250/- towards refund of paid amount, compensation for mental agony and costs of complaint.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant is resident of Guntur retired from Bank service who does not have any own house for his living purpose.   In the year 2007 the Government of AP introduced Rajiv Swagruha GruhaKalpa scheme for allotment of houses for homeless people categorically.   The complainant applied for the scheme by obtaining application in e-seva for Rs.250/- and opted house of 1131 sq.ft with all relevant documents like no house affidavit, income certificate, residence certificate, ID, driving license.

According to the opposite parties the price of the house is Rs.11,80,000/-.   The opposite parties advised to pay Rs.5,000/- towards processing fee and Rs.1,74,000/- towards part payment in the Abhinandana township at Narasaraopet.

The complainant was given by 1^st opposite party an acknowledgment in token of receiving the application form and demand draft, the application No.1021000100.  At the time of booking, the opposite parties promised to arrange a loan to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party processed complainant’s application after two years expressed non-eligibility to bank loan.

The opposite parties having received the amounts failed to allot the flat to the complainant.   Due to ill-health the complainant intended to purchase the flat and ready to pay subsequent installments to the opposite parties.   The 1^st opposite party instructed the complainant to verify the 2 bed room flat in Block No.2 (BA02).   Basing on the oral instruction the complainant satisfied and obtained DD for Rs.1,16,000/- in the year 2010 from SBI on 10-08-10 when the complainant approached 1^st opposite party for submission of DD 1^st opposite party rejected to receive it and demanded to pay Rs.3,00,000/-.

        Due to non-allotment, the complainant cancel his demand draft for Rs.1,16,000/- and requesting for cancellation of flat and seeking refund of paid advance amount Rs.1,79,250/-, through its letter dated 14-10-10.  The 1^st opposite party addressed a letter to the 2^nd opposite party about the refund amount of the complainant                      dt.2-11-10.    Again, the 1^st opposite party issued a letter to 2^nd opposite party for willing to refund by deducting 15% of the paid amount i.e., deducted amount is Rs.26,100/-.   Against 1^st opposite party addressed a letter 2^nd opposite party dt.6-4-11 for refund of the amount.   Finally, the 1^st opposite party issued a letter dated 03-06-11 to the complainant stating that refund cheque for Rs.58,000/- only, instead of Rs.179,250/-, which shows that there is a clear deficiency and sub-standard service committed by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties are a statutory body and it is not a commercial organization, like private institutions.   The scheme itself is welfare and beneficial scheme for the homeless people.    The Government is not expected to forfeit such huge amount instead of refunding the paid amount with interest.   It is totally unfair, unjust, arbitrary and quite illegal, which cannot be sustained before law.   Hence the complaint.

3.    The 1^st opposite party filed memo adopting the version of                     2^nd opposite party and the contents in brief are hereunder:

        The opposite parties submits that as per the terms and conditions prescribed by the opposite parties any of the applicant must paid an amount of 25% on total flat cost; then only the opposite parties confirmed the allotment.   In this case the complainant paid an amount of 15% of total flat cost i.e., Rs.1,74,000/- instead of Rs.2,90,000/- i.e., 25% of flat cost.   As per the terms and conditions of the opposite parties the complainant failed to deposit the 25% amount on total flat cost.   That’s why the opposite parties unable to provide the allotment letter to the complainant.   As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and agreement of sale clearly mentioned as “10% of flat cost will be deducted from the amount paid by you in case if you withdraw or cancel the allotment in the mid way at any point of time once after the allotment/sale agreement is made by you”.    As per the rule prescribed by the higher authorities the 1^st opposite party informed by way of letter dated 03-06-11 requested to attend the office and take the refund cheque of Rs.58,000/-.   The complainant received the same and not turns up to the letter and filed the false case against the opposite parties.

          It is further submits that, the opposite parties calculated the refund amount as follows:

Amount paid by the complainant                      : 1,74,000/-

10% deduction on total flat cost:11,60,000x10%: 1,16,000/-

                                                                           _________

             Refund amount to the applicant/complainant    58,000/-

        For the above reasons the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency of service as mentioned by the complainant.   As such this complainant cannot be made liable for any litigation and moreover the complainant is liable to pay damages to the opposite parties for creating unnecessary litigation.                                                         

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-16 on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-4 on behalf of opposite parties were marked.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.   POINTS 1&2:-    The complainant apart from process fee of Rs.5000/- (Ex.A-8) paid Rs.1,74,000/- (Ex.A-9) towards 15% of the tentative cost of the plot of Rs.11,60,000/- as per No.4 of the notice issued by District Project Management Unit, Guntur division (Ex.B-1) and following condition No.6 which is as below:

        “Now on the offer of allotment of flat you are required

        to pay 25% of the tentative cost in three installments……..”

        The complainant wants to cancel at the application stage.   The opposite parties contended showing that condition No.19 which is as below:

        “10% of the cost will be deducted from the amount paid by you         in case if you withdraw or cancel the allotment in the midway at   any point of time once after the allotment/sale agreement is         made by you”.

        The opposite parties can deduct 10% of the flat cost after allotment when the allottee withdraws the allotment.  No such condition was mentioned in Ex.B-4 or application in case of applicants.  Under those circumstances the opposite parties claiming deduction of 15% i.e., Rs.26,100/- from the paid amount amounts to deficiency of service.

        The complainant sought cancellation of his application due to his financial condition as on and but not otherwise as contended in the complaint. The averments made in Ex.A12 falsified complaint averments.

        As the complaint himself sought cancellation he is not entitled to any damages or compensation.

7.   POINT NO.3:-   In the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,74,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy four thousand only) paid by the complainant along with interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint i.e., 16-06-11 till realization.
2. Each party shall bear their own costs.
3. The amount ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 30^th day of November, 2011.

          MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:  

                                                                                          PRESIDENT