This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 01-03-12 in the presence of Sri N. Prasad Reddy, advocate for the complainant and of Smt B. Bindu, 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 Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        This complaint was filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite party to register the plot bearing No.76 in Sai Chaitanya-I Group without paying any additional charges.

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

        The opposite party is doing business in real estate.   The complainant joined as a member in Sai Chaitanya-I Group for purchase of house plot.   The opposite party allotted plot No.76.                 The complainant paid last installment on 20-10-08 and requested the opposite party to register the plot as early as possible.  At the time of joining the scheme the opposite parties informed the complainant about payment of Rs.200/- per sq. yard towards development charges and it was mentioned in the booklet at S.No.9.    The opposite parties have to lay roads in the entire venture and do development work and then only the complainant would bear the cost of Rs.200/- per sq. yard.  The opposite parties did not perform their duty but insisted the complainant to pay Rs.700/- per sq. yard towards development charges.   The said demand is unnatural and illegal.  The opposite parties did not do any development work on ground.    Non developing the venture as published in the booklet amounted to deficiency of service.    The complaint therefore be allowed.

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

        The complainant joined in Sai Chaitanya Group and paid Rs.2,40,000/- towards the plot measuring 200 sq. yards.  As per terms of the scheme only a tentative plot number was given and final plot number will be given at the time of registration as per the availability of plots.  Since 20-10-08 the complainant kept quite without responding though the representatives of the opposite parties met him and requested him to come forward to select a plot and to pay the development charges and registration expenses.   On 24-04-10 the complainant visited the office premises of the opposite party branch office at Guntur and assured to come with payment towards development and registration expenses on par with other members.   The complainant failed to pay the development charges and registration expenses.    As per the norms of VGTM UDA, 2008 the  developmental activities were taken up by the opposite party and as such the opposite party faced extra burden in developing the site.  As per new norms 40 feet gravel road on which BT road had to be laid besides electrical pole and electrical lines and drainage system.  The opposite party accordingly laid roads, erected electrical poles, electrical lines and underground drainage system besides over head tank and culverts.   As the development activities were taken up to the satisfaction the VGTM UdA authorities issued lay out plan.   The development charges @Rs.200/- per sq. yard was a tentative one and it was so mentioned in the booklet.   Development charges were fixed reasonably basing upon the actual expenditure incurred by the opposite parties.    The complainant did not turn up to meet the representatives of the opposite party as assured by him earlier.  The opposite party gave a suitable reply to the notice issued by the complainant.   To cover up his latches the complainant filed this complaint with false allegations.   The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Exs.B-1 to B-10 on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties were marked respectively.

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

        1.   Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of                                service?

        2.   Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if                        so to what amount?

        3.   To what relief?

6.  Admitted facts in this case are these:

1. The complainant was a member of the opposite party in Sai Chaitanya-I Group and the opposite parties issued pass book (Ex.A-1).
2. The complainant in all paid Rs.2,42,000/- from 13-04-06 to 20-10-08 (Ex.A-1).
3. PB. No.76 was mentioned in Ex.A-1 pass book.
4. There was exchange of notices between the complainant and opposite party (Exs.A-2 and A-3).
5. The complainant has not paid developmental charges to the opposite parties. 

7.    POINT No.1:-  It is not the case of the complainant  that he is not aware of  the terms and conditions as mentioned in Ex.A-1. The terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A-1 are binding on both the complainant and the opposite parties.

8.   In Ex.A-1 pass book number 76 was mentioned both inside and on cover page.  But in Ex.B-1 it was mentioned that pass book number               was 76.  It can therefore be said that ‘76’ represented pass book number but not plot number. The scheme started on 07-02-06 and ended by 06-02-09.   Clauses 6 and 10 of Ex.A-1 reads as follow:

          The said recitals corroborated the contention of the opposite parties that any plot number initially allotted was a tentative one. 

9.   The dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties is regarding the amount payable towards development charges.                Clauses 8 and 9 of Ex.A-1 deal with it.   For better appreciation clauses 8 and 9 of Ex.A-1 are extracted below:

        The fixation of amount of Rs.200/- per sq. yard as development charge is tentative and the said contention of the opposite parties is having considerable force. 

10.   The lands pertaining to the scheme were located in S.Nos.335/P, 336/P, 343/P and 348/P and others of Yetukuru village.   But the ventured covered by Ex.B-7 was located in S.No.74/2, 74/4A (P), 75(P), 76, 99, 569 (P), 613 (P) and 614 (P) to an extent of Ac.17.57 ½ cents.  The survey numbers mentioned in Ex.B-8 did not find place in Ex.A-1.   It can therefore be said that Exs.B-7 and B-8 did not relate to Ex.A-1.   The opposite parties did not file any document to show that VGTM UDA approved the lay out in Survey numbers mentioned in Ex.A-1.   Under those circumstances the contention of the complainant about the opposite party not undertaking any development activities is thus corroborated. 

11.   In Kiran Real Estates and constructions, Sitammadhara, Visakhapatnam vs. Nagalla Anand Sai Sudhakar 1999 (1) CPJ 476 it was held that the attempt of the appellant to sell plots without lay out approved by the VUDA amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.   In view of the aforementioned discussion, we answer this point against the opposite parties.  

12.  POINT No.2:-     The complainant did not seek return of the money paid by him under Ex.A-1 for the reasons best known to him.  The relief of the complainant for relief of registration of plot without development charges cannot be accepted in view of the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A-1.   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to show the development activities as per the norms of the VGTM UDA by issuing notice in writing to the complainant within two weeks. 
2. The opposite parties are directed to intimate the development charges within a week in writing thereafter to the complainant.
3. On payment of development charges by the complainant within two weeks thereafter the opposite party is directed to register a plot among the available plots in Sai Chaitanya-I Scheme within two weeks.   The complainant shall bear the registration expenses at the time of registration.
4. In case the complainant is not willing to pay the development charges as claimed by them, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.2,42,000/- (Rupees two lakhs forty two thousand only) together with interest @9% p.a., from 20-10-08 till payment. 
5. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenograpaher, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 6^th day of March, 2012.

      Sd/-xxx                             Sd/-xxx                               Sd/-xxx

            MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties: 

                                                                                                                  Sd/-xxx

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT