Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/119/2013

Gundrani Venkata Ramana - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The General Manager Projects A.P. Rajiv Swagurha Corporation Limited APRSCL - Opp.Party(s)

G.Stalinbabu

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                             Date of filing       :  12-11-2013

                                                             Date of disposal  :   30-09-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: Nellore ::

                                                       

Wednesday, this the 30th day of SEPTEMBER, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member                           

         

                                 C.C.No.119/2013

Gundrami Venkata Ramana ,

Son of Subba Reddy,

Aged 37 years, Hindu,

24-1-1444, JVR Colony,

Nellore - 524003. ... Complainant

 

                      Vs.                                                                        

                                                                           

1. The General Manager (Projects)

A.P.Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited, (APRSCL),

SUMAVALLI Project,

25-1-219, Nethata Nagar,

Padmavathi Nagar ,

Podalakur Road, A.K.Nagar Post,

Nellore - 524004.

 

2.  The Managing Director,

The Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha

   Corporation Limited,(APRSCL),

1-2-386, Bharath Scouts and Guides

    State Secretariat Complex,

Domalguda,

HYDERABAD – 500 029.

 

3. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Fathekhanpet Branch,

Fathekhanpet, Nellore.                                    …       Opposite parties

 

 

This matter coming on  15-09-2015  before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Stalin Babu, Advocate for the complainant and  Sri N.Sudheer Reddy, Advocate for the 1st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party remained absent and   Sri P.Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate for the 3^rd opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

     This Consumer Case  is filed  by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 to direct them to handover   possession of allotment house in ‘Sumavalli’ Rajiv Swagruha Scheme  under in the name and style of classic (duplex house) NO.001, after completing the house as per specifications as mentioned in the brochure and agreement, to pay compensation for payment of interest  paid to the 3^rd opposite party of Rs.4,59,764-82; to pay loss of interest for the initial amount (25%) of Rs.4,86,000/- which paid by the  complainant on 05-09-2008; 08-10-2008 and 13-10-2008; to pay loss from the payment of rent paid by the complainant an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month due to possession was not given by he  opposite parties 1 and 2 as per schedule date of February, 2011 till today i.e., 01-02-2011 to 30-10-2013 32 X 7 months Rs.2,24,000/-  and subsequent rent payments of Rs.7,000/- from the date of filing of complaint and till the date of handling over possession; for conveyance  charges of Rs.16,000/-  mental agony due to sufferance of  Rs.50,000/- and insurance premium collected form the complainant Rs.9,307/- and total amount of Rs.13,42,271-82 paise and also to direct the 3^rd opposite party for not to harass  the complainant for payment of  EMI for  housing loan instalment till getting possession of the house as per specifications mentioned in the brochure and agreement;  to grant costs of the complaint and pass such other relief or  reliefs as the Hon’ble  Consumer Forum may deem it fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

 

Factual matrix leading to filing of this Consumer  Case is as stated as hereunder:

 

I (a)

It is the case of the complainant that he is government employee and    residing in a rented house.  He is not having own house  of his name for  residence.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 gave wide publicity about their housing   scheme  stating that   the scheme is a boon for  middle class people duly providing them for protection from various frauds, cheatings and  falsifications.  They had further promised that the schedule  provides best quality of 4 grades of houses within the gated community with all basic infrastructure  facilities of modern day which ensures a premium life style at  affordable cost and possession will be given within 8 to 12 months   from the date of payment of application fee of Rs.250/- and registration fee of Rs.50,000/-.  Believing  the words and visible representation of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and their wide spread publicity and  advertisement, of their housing scheme through T.V.,  news papers and colourful broachers   and also the assurance of the said opposite parties 1 and 2, the complainant had with a great hope  and  releasing   from burden of rented house, joined as a member of the housing scheme of opposite parties 1 and 2.

 

 

(b)	It is also submitted by the complainant that  in para-5 of    his complaint that as per the terms of the scheme, he had paid an application fee of Rs.250/- on 19-04-2007 and registration fee of Rs.5,000/- on 20-04-2007  under an application No.1031002553 and considered  the allotment  house in ‘Sumavalli’ Rajiv Swagruha scheme under in the name and style of classic (duplex house) category “A” and as per the terms and conditions, he had paid Rs.4,86,000/- towards initial booking  advance which  is 25%  tentative cost of the unit on 15-09-2008 for Rs.2,85,000/-; on 08-10-2008 for Rs.2,00,000/-  and on 13-10-2008 for  Rs.1,000/-.  The balance amount of  75% to be paid in four instalments as indicated in the  schedule as (i) 30% on grounding level of construction; (ii) 18.75% on basement level;    (iii) 18.75% on roof level and remaining 07.50% at finishing stage.
(c)	It is also further submitted by the complainant in paras 6  and 7 of  his complaint that  he was provided   housing loan from 3rd opposite party with the tripartite  agreement of opposite parties 1 and 2 as one part and opposite party No.3 i.e., State Bank of India, easy housing loan as another part.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 had collected allottee contribution amount from the complainant through 3rd opposite party as per schedule i.e., Rs.8,91,200/- by way of demand draft No.30806458917 on 20-10-2009;  Rs.4,68,950/- by way of D.D.No.30806458917 on 09-03-2010; and Rs.3,60,000/- by way of D.D.No.30806458917 on 30-01-2012.  Though, it is opposite parties 1 and 2 and their legal and  bounden duty to complete and handover the possession of the building on or before  February, 2011, inspite of his several approaches, requests and letters correspondences, they had failed to do the same without any default on the part of the complainant and dragging  the matter for the  reasons best known to them and the attitude of the opposite parties 1 and 2 which    clearly goes to show that their gross-negligence and deficiency in service.  The opposite parties 1 and 2, having collected huge amount of Rs.4,86,000/- towards initial booking advance which is 25% of tentative cost; Rs.5,250/- towards as  registration fee and an application fee from the own amount of complainant and Rs.18,45,150/- through 3rd opposite party bank on behalf of the ;complainant as housing loan and also insurance  premium of Rs.9,307/-.  The  opposite parties 1 and 2 should handover the possession in all aspects after completion of building.  The complainant had paying bank housing loan interest payment regularly upto 4th, October, 2012 for total an amount of Rs.3,60,128/- without taking  possession of the building and also due to not getting possession from the opposite parties 1 and 2,  he had paying house rents for his living   for his family for  an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month.  Because of the said reasons, the complainant and his family members are not only suffering lot  of  mental worry and distress  but also suffering lot of financial problems due to huge amounts paid from his personal savings, housing loans and house rents and other loans from outsiders  etc., with higher rates of interest without his fault as the case may be.
(d)	It is also further submitted by the complainant that in para 8 of his complaint that the opposite parties  1 and 2 had given assurance to him that the completion of building and possession of the house, will be completed on or before February, 2011 but still now, the project is not yet completed.  He had made many more letters correspondences  with the opposite parties 1 and 2.  But, without  utilizing   the house, he had been forced to pay EMI payment of Rs.19,500/- per month to 3rd opposite party. Eventoday, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are not yet completed basic amenities like electricity, toilets, roads and water supply.  Knowing  the fact very well, regarding non-possession of the house by the complainant from opposite parties 1 and 2, the opposite party No.3  as a  party to the tripartite agreement, harassing and  demanding  the complainant orally for EMI   payment for housing loan amount provided by 3rd opposite party.  The 3rd opposite party  had colluded with the opposite parties 1 and 2, demanding the  complainant for EMI payments for an un-finished and without occupancies of the housing structure, is an act of unfair trade practice and deceptive trade practices on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2  and not a fair practice code of banking on the part of 3rd opposite party.
(e)	There are causes   of action to file this complaint are narrated and described  at page No.4 of the complaint.  Hence, the complaint.

 

II   The contents of written version / counter of opposite parties 1 and 2:

 

          The opposite parties 1 and 2 and 3^rd opposite party  were resisted  the complaint by filing a separate written version / counter dated 16-04-2014 and also on 16-04-2014 respectively denying the allegations of the complainant in the complaint.  Those said allegations  are false and invented for the purpose of filing this complaint.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

 

 

(i)	The opposite parties 1 and 2 denied  the allegations of the complainant in their written version / counter in paras 2 to 5.  It is also further submitted by opposite parties  1 and 2 that in para 6 of their written version / counter that Government of Andhra Pradesh under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 intends to construct affordable houses to the moderate income group of the public under ‘ Rajiv Swagruha’.  This opposite parties proposed to take up Housing  Scheme named as  “Sumavalli” project in Kothuru Village, Nellore and called for applications duly offering 4  types  of houses namely Classic, Intrinsic, Basic & Civic for allotment according  to the eligibility of the applicants.  The complainant also applied for  allotment of an  Intrinsic Duplex  House duly paying Rs.4,86,000/- towards   25%  of Tentative Cost of the unit Rs.19.40 lakhs as per allotment conditions.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 accepted the complainant’s request and allotted the Intrinsic H.No.209  as per his choice on 29-04-2009 and provided him with an allotment letter duly imposing certain tems &  conditions therein together with a schedule  for payment of remaining 75% Tentative Cost.  The distribution  for  payment of 75%  is stipulated in the allotment letter as 30% at the time of Grounding the House, 18.75% at the time of putting the Basement, 18.75% at the time of Roof level and 7.5% at the time of Finishing Stage of the house.
(ii)	It is also further submitted by the opposite parties  1 and 2 in para 7 of their written version / counter that the complainant had put in a petition on 02-09-2009 i.e., after about 4 ½ months  of the allotment of the above said Intrinsic H.No.209 and requested for changing the category of house from Intrinsic to Classic, whose tentative cost is Rs.25,04 lakhs, as the Bank Authorities whom the complainant approached for loan, have liberally given him a way for sanctioning a loan up to Rs.20,00,000/-  with which he can afford for purchase  Classic House.  These opposite  parties 1 and 2 accepted the request of the complainant   and changed the category of the house from Intrinsic H.No.209 to Classic H.No.01 and accordingly passed allotment  orders on 04-09-2009.  The terms &  conditions laid down in the allotment letter issued against the Instrinsic H.No.209 stands good for the Classic H.No.01 also as usual.  The Bank Authorities also were  simultaneously addressed  on 04-09-2009 for releasing the loan as per schedule already explained to them.  As the work of the houses in all categories of Sumavalli Project was in grounding stage, the  complainant has become due an amount of Rs.7,51,200/- towards 30%  Tentative  Cost plus Rs.1,40,000/- towards difference of earlier payment of 25% totaling Rs.8,91,200/- by the time of issuing allotment orders itself i.e., by 04-09-2009.  But, the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.8,91,200/- in to the account of the opposite parties only on 20-10-2009.
(iii)	It is also further submitted by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in para 8 of their written version / counter that the complainant  is out-rightly defaulted   from the very inception of this transaction in  paying the instalments as well as in abiding  to the Terms & Conditions of the allotment orders.

     The details of payments are as follows:

 

S.No.	Installment	Amount to be paid in Lakhs	Due Date	Amount paid in Lakhs	Payment made on	Period of delay
1.	25% of Tentative cost	4.86	13-10-2008	4.86	13-10-2008	Nil
2.	A)30% of Tentative cost  Rs.7.512 lakhs   B)Difference of 25% i.e., from intrinsic to classic Rs.1.04 lakhs	8.912	13-10-2008	8.912	20-10-2009	1Y-8days
3.	18.75% of Tentative Cost	4.695	16-01-2010	4.6895	09-03-2010	1M 22 days
4.	A) 18.75% of Tentative Cost Rs.4,695 Lakhs B) Balance in 3rd instalments Rs.550/-	4.7005	31-01-2010	3.60	30-10-2012	2 Years
5.	A) 7.50% of Tentative Cost Rs.1.878 Lakhs   B)Balance from Item No.4 Rs.1,1005 Lakhs	2.9785	25-09-2010	0	0	3Y 1M 23 Days

 

        The period of  delay mentioned against the column  No.5 above is taken from 25-10-2010 to 18-11-2013,  the date on when the complainant had filed a petition in the Hon’ble Forum.  The complainant had also contravened the  condition of allotment in executing the  agreement  of sale.  As per the conditions were laid down  in the allotment letter, the allottee shall execute an agreement for sale  immediately after allotment orders are received by him, failing which the allotment will be cancelled duly forfeiting the amounts paid by him to the Corporation funds.  But in this Case, the complainant after reminded repeatedly has executed the sale agreement on 11-03-2011, which should have been made on 04-09-2009 i.e., with a delay of 1Y-6M-7days.  Thus, the complainant defaulted both in payment of  instalments as well as in abiding the conditions of allotment orders, which entails cancellation of allotment and forfeiture of amounts to the Corporation funds.  But, the opposite parties 1 and 2 intending to keep up the interest of the complainant and to place him in a good atmosphere by not forgoing anything of him by coming over to Corporation, the aforesaid defaults of the complainant were ignored and allotment of the Classic No.1 standing  in his name has been continued till date without cancellation.  Even to this date, an amount of  Rs.2,97,850/- is yet due from the complainant.

 

(iv)

It is also further submitted by the opposite parties 1 and 2  in para 9 of their written version / counter that the complainant is making much emphasis on the date of handing over possession of the house i.e., 28-02-2011.  In fact, the building is completed  all respects by getting  finished in structural aspect with white and colour  washed by 28-02-2011, which the opposite parties 1 and 2 mentioned as probable date of handing over the possession.  But, the infrastructural works like water supply, Electricity, Drainage and laying roads have taken some time after so called probable date and they are now coming up for completion  as the respective departments are their process for co-ordinating the above items of works.

 

(v)

It is also further submitted by the opposite parties 1 and 2  in para 10 of their written version / counter that the allotment of the house is only self-financing system and the condition No.7 of the allotment Order clearly says that the opposite party’s  endeavour is to complete the project in time and in order to make it possible, the complainant’s timely payment as per schedule is necessary and the payment of instalments will ensure timely execution of work and delay or non-payment of the monthly in time will not only result in time over and cost over runs, but also entail cancellation of his  allotment.  If this conditions is strictly followed by the opposite party, the  allotment standing in the name of the complainant should have been cancelled and amounts been  forfeited to the corporation funds.  Further, the complainant cannot hold any moral right to claim the possession before the probable date of completion i.e., on 28-02-2011,  as the complainant is yet due an amount of Rs.2,97,850/- besides defaulting terms and conditions at every stage since by the time he demands the possession of house, there should not be any amount of due  and default in abiding any condition.  Further, as per Clause No.8 of the Sale Agreement executed by the complainant, the vendor i.e., the  opposite parties 1 and 2 shall deliver possession of the vacant schedule flat to the purchaser after sale deed is registered on payment of total cost of the schedule house including final cost.  Thus, the complainant also forgoes the right of claiming possession to the specified probable date as he cannot get the registration of sale deed due to non-payment of balance amount inspite of passing a longer period  of 3 years 4 months over the schedule date.

(vi)

Finally, it is   also further submitted by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in para 11 of their written version / counter that the complainant had submitted an application on 06-08-2011 requesting the opposite parties  1 and 2 to allot him also a vacant site of about 100 Sy. Yards adjacent to the house allotted to him.  These opposite parties 1 and 2 deferred his  request to allot the adjacent site as the rules of the Corporation do not agree with the claim of the complainant.  Keeping in view of the above action of the opposite parties 1 and 2,  the complainant developed a grudge   against the opposite party and filed this petition in this Forum for  acquiring his  dishonest gain.  So, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may please to dismiss the complaint in the  interests of justice.

 

 The contents of written version / counter filed by 3^rd opposite party:

 

1	The complainant had dragged unnecessarily 3rd opposite paryt into litigation with an intention to delay and post-ponement of repayment of loan amount availed by him from 3rd opposite party.  So, this complaint is not maintainable.
2	It is also further submitted by 3rd opposite party in paras 7 to 9 of its written version / counter that the complainant had made allegations against 3rd opposite party, are baseless and false.  As per the terms and conditions of the said loan documents which were executed earlier in favour of  3rd opposite party-bank and the  complainant has to pay monthly instalments regularly without default.  He had availed housing loan from 3rd opposite party bank for purchase of a house by executing relevant documents in its favour  and created charge over the same, agreeing to repay the said loan amount in monthly instalments of Rs.20,032/-.  He is irregular in payment of monthly instalments as agreed upon and thereby he had committed default in payment of monthly instalments.
3.	It is also submitted by 3rd opposite party in para 10 of its written version / counter that the complainant had in order to evade payments to 3rd opposite party and playing all sorts of tactics and delayed the proceedings.  The officials  of 3rd opposite party are law-abiding citizens and they won’t  take law into their own hands and they will proceed against the complainant as per law.  They are never harassed the complainant at any point of time.  Hence, 3rd opposite party is praying that the Hon’ble  Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against it with costs.

 

III	The complainant had filed an chief-affidavit as P.W.1 on 13-08-2014 and also an additional chief-affidavit on 09-04-2015 and marked the documents on his behalf as Exs.A1 to A20; whereas the opposite parties 1 and 2 had also filed their chief-affidavit as R.W.1 on                25-08-2015  through one Mr.M. Sreenivasulu, General Manager, Projects A.P.R.S.C.L., Kadapa, who is holding as additional charge of Nellore District and 3rd opposite party had also filed its  affidavit as R.W.1 through its chief-manager, SBI, Fathekhanpeta Branch, Nellore and  no documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties  1 to 3.  The written arguments of the case by the complainant filed on 25-06-2015, whereas the opposite parties 1 and 2 had also filed written arguments on  03-08-2015 and 3rd opposite party had also filed its written arguments in support of their case.
IV	Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for our determination are namely:-
(a)	Is there any deficiency in service on the part  of the opposite parties 1 to 3 towards the complainant?
(b)	Whether   the complainant  is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?
(c)	To what relief?
V.  POINTS 1 AND 2: In view of these two points are iner-related with each other and they have  been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has once again reiterated the facts of the case.  It is nothing but repetition of the same and so avoided repetition of them.

 

Oral arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant:

Sri Gummadi Stalin Babu, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued  that the complainant’s complaint, chief-affidavit and written arguments of the case, is clearly reveals the case and proves  that the fact of deficiency  in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 towards him.  He has also  further contended  that the payments that were made by the complainant, right from initial stage of the project to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and they proved by way of documents Exs.A1 to A6.  The opposite parties cannot deny the payments  of the complainant to  them.   It is  crystal clear that the documents are never lie but men do so as they like.  He has also further urged that 3^rd opposite party – Bank had paid agreed instalments at different stages to the opposite parties 1 to 2 but not followed norms agreed between the complainant and 3^rd opposite party (Exs.A7).  It is much earlier in point of time with regard to release of the amounts by 3^rd opposite party to the opposite parties 1 and 2 by colluding with them.  The said learned counsel for the complainant has much stressed that it is the legal and bounden duty of the opposite parties 1 and 2 to complete and handover the possession of the said house on or before February, 2011.  But, they had failed to handover the possession to the complainant in the said month of February, 2011.   Because  of that the complainant is forced to reside in an rented house by paying  Rs.7,000/- pr month and also to pay instalments to 3^rd opposite party-bank.  There is a lot of deficiency in service  and it is purely the  negligence and unfair trade practice of opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant.  He has   placed a reliance on the decision of A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad in the  case of Krishna Chaitanya Gondi  Vs.  M/s.Hill  Country Properties Limited on 12^th February, 2014.  This case is similar to the facts of the case on hand and so it is applicable to the present case and ratio of the case is very much suitable to the case on hand.  The said learned counsel for the complainant has also further argued that the complainant himself had addressed letters (Exs.A10 and A15) to the opposite parties  1 and 2  by expressing his displeasure about performance of the opposite prties 1 and 2.  The complainant had categorically explained date-wise of payments to the opposite parties 1 and 2 clearly in the complaint itself and  also exchange of notices proved those facts between them.  Finally,  he has prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint with costs.

 

Oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2:

Sri N. Sudheer Reddy, the learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 has also vehemently argued that the written version, affidavit  and written arguments of opposite parties 1 and 2 may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments of the case.  He has also further argued that the opposite parties 1 and 2 acted according to the rules and regulations of the project undertaken by them and as per the allotment of house conditions  to the complainant.  He has stressed further  during the course of arguments of the case on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 that initially the complainant had  applied for allotment of an intrinsic duplex house  duly paying S.4,86,000/- towards 2.5% of tentative costs of the unit Rs.19.40 lakhs  as per allotment conditions.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 had accepted the complainant’s request and allotted Intrinsic  H.No.209 as per his choice on 29-04-2009 and later on changed the category of the house from intrinsic H.No.209 to classic H.No.01 and   accordingly passed allotment orders on 04-09-2009.  The  bank authorities (opposite party No.3) are also  addressed  on 04-09-2009 for releasing  the loan as per schedule.  The said learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 has also further contended that the organization (opposite parties 1 and 2) without any profit motive helping to the needy  people.  It is true that building is completed in all respects by getting finished in structural aspect with white and  colour washed by             28-02-2011 but the infrastructural  works like water supply, electricity, drainage and   laying roads took some time thereafter.  He has also advanced his oral arguments for opposite parties 1 and 2 that the complainant’s timely payment as per  schedule is necessary and the complainant himself had not approached the Hon’ble  Forum with clean hands and suppressed the facts  the opposite parties                 1 and 2 are not acted  strictly according  to the conditions of the project and lenient attitude adopted in the case of complainant throughout from the beginning till now.  But the complainant has filed this complaint  to harass opposite parties 1 and 2, with an ulterior motive to get wrongful gain and undue advantage of delay.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are meant for welfare of the people at large.  The claim of the complainant in the complaint is too much high and not reasonable and against  the principles of  Natural Justice.  Finally, the said learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 has prayed that the Hon’ble  Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

Oral arguments of the learned counsel for 3^rd opposite party:

Sri P. Gangadhara Reddy,  the learned counsel for 3^rd opposite party has also vehemently argued that written version, affidavit  and written arguments of the 3^rd opposite party may be read as part  and parcel of  his oral arguments.  He has further argued that the complainant had availed  housing loan from 3^rd opposite party for purchase of house by executing relevant documents in favour of the bank and created a charge over the same, agreeing to repay the said loan amount in monthly instalments of  Rs.20,032/-.  It is absolutely false to allege that 3^rd opposite party bank colluded with the opposite parties 1 and 2.  The 3^rd opposite party bank is law-abiding citizen and respect towards law and the complainant  had played  fraud and the cheap tactics to delay the repayments proceedings .  The 3^rd opposite party won’t take law into own their hands  and never harassed  the complainant at any point of time.  Finally,  the said learned counsel for the 3^rd opposite party has prayed that  the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to  dismiss the  complaint against 3^rd opposite party.

 

Forum’s Findings and observations

       Heard, the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the record very carefully. The nature of liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not strict liability but fault liability. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and produced their documentary evidence. One who seeks equity from the Courts / Forum must come with clean hands to seek justice

        To appreciate the controversy, it would be an appropriate if we narrate all the circumstances of the case both on question of fact as well as question of law in detail.  The basic facts of the case are not disputed and repetition of them are here avoided.  Housing construction  is a service come under  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

          The core point involved in this consumer dispute is that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are delayed considerably to handover possession of a house to the complainant.  To resolve dispute between them and after  observing the pleadings of the case, it is crystal clear that  there is sufficiently that delay is occurred in hand overing the possession of the house to the complainant.  From the agreed date during the month of February, 2011, definitely the opposite parties  had not  delivered  possession of the house to the complainant, he is  in a rented house for the last five  years, according to him, paying  Rs.7,000/- per month as a rent, it could have been avoided if really the opposite parties delivered possession of the house to the complainant.  Moreover, right from the beginning he had paid various amounts coupled with instalments to the 3^rd opposite party and also to the opposite parties 1 and 2.  The complainant is deprived of benefit  which is entitled to get occupation of the house in time.

          We have scanned the entire material on the record and opined that there is a lot of deficiency in service and negligence on the part  of the opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant.  The third opposite party bank is undoubtedly entitled to the instalments as agreed by the complainant,  whatever the reasons as the case may be. The opposite parties 1 and 2 had admitted that there is a delay in handovering the possession of the house to the complainant  for the reasons beyond their control.  The opposite parties 1 and 2, is the organization without any profit motive serving to the public at large. Any how, the opposite parties 1 and 2 had delayed the project and there by loss is occurred to the complainant.  Loss signifies some detriment or deprivation or damage.  “Injury” also means any damage or wrong.  It means invasion of  any legally protected  interest of another.  Mental worry cannot be measured in terms of money.

 

Compensation:-

 

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s and Hon’ble A.P.State Commission’s decisions on the topic of compensation:-  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarath Vs.Shantilal Mangaladas, AIR 1969 SC 634 discussed about award of compensation.  The compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable, held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  Chansingh Vs.Healing Touch Hospital and others III(2000) CPJ1 (SC) and also stressed the need of balancing between the compensation awarded recompensing the Consumer and the change it brings in the attitude of the service provider.

       These decisions are referred by the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission in the case of Ramayanam Varun Kumar Vs.  Gannavaram Technical Training centre and another which is reported in I (2015) CPJ page 1 (AP), which awarding compensation to Appellant/complainant. Compensation or damages can be  awarded only, if complainant has suffered loss or  damages due to negligence of manufacturer or service provider  - 2011 (2) CPR 101     (NC).

Relevant Case Law:

1. Complainant must prove his claim by reliable evidence – 2011 (3) CPR 449 (NC).

 

2.  One  who makes an allegation is required to prove it beyond doubt – 2011 (2) CPR 46 (NC).

 

3.  Consumer For a can award  compensation as deemed proper, reasonable   and not as per   asking of complainant – 2011 (2) CPR 282 (NC).

 

4.  Complaint is based on deficiency in service  must establish the same by leading cogent evidence  - 2011 (2) CPR 68 (NC).

 

5. In the case of consumer disputes redressal Forums, the judgments must set out the points in dispute and a decision on those points supported by some reasons – 1995 (I) CPR 832 (NC).

 

6. Repeated deficiency in service of the service provider amounts to gross deficiency in it’s service for which the consumer has to be adequately compensated by it which is reported in  2010 C.T.J. (N.C.) 1159.

 

7.  A quasi – judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions  - 2011 CTJ (SC) (CP) 128.

 

           The relevant documents  are marked on behalf of the complainant Exs.A1 to A20 speak about his entire episode  of his  suffering in the hands of opposite parties 1 and 2.   The 3^rd opposite party bank is the financier who had advanced loan to the complainant and case against 3^rd opposite party bank cannot be entertained.

       The  said learned counsel for the complainant has cited a relevant decision of Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad as said above, is almost similar to the facts of the case on the hand.  The principles laid down in the above said case are applicable to the present case also.

       In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and with regard to points of fact and law, we are of the opinion that the said learned counsel for the complainant has convinced us with his oral arguments of the case.  We have considered the rival submission of the said learned counsel for the parties. There is a lot of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards complainant.  Law assists those who are vigilant.  Justice is rendered in accordance with law.  Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. We are satisfied that it is a fit case, where in we have to give the reliefs to the complainant. These two points are held in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties, accordingly.

 

POINT No.3:    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part ordering the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to handover the possession of allotment house in “Sumavalli” Rajiv Swagruha Scheme under in the name and style CLASSIC(DUPLEX HOUSE) (House No.001), after completing the house as per specifications mentioned in the brochure and agreement and also liable to pay opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the costs of this complaint to the complainant, accordingly in the interest of justice.  The complaint against the 3^rd opposite party is dismissed without costs.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 30th day of September, 2015.    

 

             Sd/-                                                                              Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

13-08-2014      and 09-04-2015

:

Gundrami Venkata Ramana, S/o. Subba Reddy, aged 37 years, Hindu, presently residing at 3-161-18-9-1, 1st Floor, State Bank Colony, Madanapalli, Chittoor District.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1         RW2

25-03-2015         10-12-2015

:         :

M.Sreenivasulu, Son of late Sri M.Yathirajulu Naidu, Hindu, aged 60 years, General Manager, Projects, A.P.R.S.C.L., Kadapa, holding additional charge of Nellore District.   R.Nagaraju, S/o.Sathyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Fathekhanpeta Branch, Nellore City.

                                                                              

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	-	:	Original colourful copy of brochure issued by the opposite parties 1 and 2 for “Sumavalli @ Nellore Project.
Ex.A2	19-04-2007	:	Original receipt for application fee of Rs.250/- under application No.1031002553.
Ex.A3	20-04-2007	:	Original receipt for Registration fee for Rs.5,000/- under application No.1031002553.
Ex.A4	18-04-2008	:	Photostat copy of allotment letter issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant.

 

Ex.A5       Ex.A6       Ex.A7           Ex.A8         Ex.A9       Ex.A10       Ex.A11     Ex.A12     Ex.A13         Ex.A14                       Ex.A15     Ex.A16     Ex.A17     Ex.A18     Ex.A19     Ex.A20

15-09-2008       08-10-2008       04-09-2009           25-04-2009         13-08-2010       22-02-2011       11-03-2011     08-11-2011     11-11-2011         14-11-2011     20-11-2011     12-11-2011     09-01-2008 09-10-2008   21-01-2014     07-02-2014     09-03-2014

:       :       :           :         :       :       :     :     :         :     :     :     :     :     :     :

Photostat copy of bank counter foil in SBH for payment of Rs.2,85,000/- towards initial booking advance.   Photostat copy of bank counter foil in SBH for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- towards initial booking advance.   Original of bank loan offer under Letter No.GM/Project/APRSCL/Nellore/Bankloan addressed by the opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.3 and copy to the complainant.     Original of payment schedule under Letter No.GM/APRSCL/ALLOTMENT/08-09 addressed by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant and copy to the opposite party No.2.   Original  of Letter No.GM/Project/APRSCL/ Nellore/Sale Agreement addressed by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.   Original of notice issued by the complainant to opposite party No.1 for execution of sale and copy to the 2nd opposite party.   Original copy of Agreement of sale executed by the opposite party No.1 and 2 in favour of complainant.   Original copy of payment of 3rd and 4th installments under letter No.1031002553/APRSCL/Nellore.   Requesting letter sent by the complainant to opposite parties for handling over the building and copy to the Minister for housing, A.P.Hyderabad along with courier receipt (one in number).   Photostat copy of 3rd installment loan disbursement letter issued by the opposite party No.3.   Requesting letter sent by the complainant to opposite parties for handling over the building.   Statement of Accounts from 12-10-2009 to 30-09-2013.   Computerized copy of APRSCL Application data.     Copy of letter sent by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant.   Reply notice sent by the complainant to OP No.3.     Statement of account from 01-10-2013 to 09-03-2014 disclosing loan amount payment of Rs.25,000/-. Made by other complainant to 3rd opposite party.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

			N I L -

                                                                           Id / -

                                                                                                   PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

Copies to:

 

1. Sri G.Stalin Babu, Advocate, 16-1891, Opp: Millenium Sub Station, Srinivasa Agraharam, Mini by pass Road, Nellore.

          

2. Sri N.Sudheer Reddy, Advocate, 23-1242, Akkanavari Street,

Nellore-524003.

 

3. The Managing Director, The Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha

   Corporation Limited,(APRSCL), 1-2-386, Bharath Scouts and Guides

    State Secretariat Complex, Domalguda, HYDERABAD – 500 029.

 

4. Sri P.Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate, 23/826/1, Ramesh Reddy Nagar, Nellore-524 003.

 

Date when order copies are issued: