BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) SANGAREDDY, MEDAK DISTRICT.
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Thursday, the 2nd day of April, 2009
CC.No.11/2009
Between:
Sri. Naresh Kumar,
S/o Sri. Kamal Kumar,
Aged about: 27 years,
R/o H.No. 5-22, Chandanagar,
Serilingampalli (M), Hyderabad – 50, R.R. Dist.
… Complainant
And
A. Narsimha Reddy, S/o Bharat Reddy,
R/o H.No. 3-133,
ANR Real Estates & Building & Constructions,
Rudraram, Medak District.
….Opposite party
This case has come up for final hearing before us on 26.03.2009 in the presence of Sri. Y. Joseph, advocate for complainant, the opposite party being call absent, upon hearing the arguments on behalf of the complainant and on perusing the record and having stood over for the consideration till this day this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to return part of saving consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 24% p.a., for compensation for Rs.10,000/- and for costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
-2-
The averment in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1). The opposite party does business in real estate in the name and style “ANR Real Estates and Building and Constructions” at Rudraram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. As the complainant intended to purchase a house plot in Rudraram Village, he approached the opposite party who showed plot No. 344 in Sy. Nos. 809, 810 and 812 measuring 297.3Sq. yards situated in Shiva Shri Nagar, Rudraram Village, Medak District belong into one Mr. Y. B. Raghavendra Rao S/o Narsing Rao a resident of Sangareddy and the original documents relating to that plot and assured that it was offered for sale by the land owner and it was free from all encumbrances and litigations and further stated that the land owner quoted Rs.1300/- per Sq. yard. The total sale consideration at the said rate comes to Rs.3,86,490/-. Believing the words of the opposite party , the complainant agreed to purchase the said plot and on 11.01.2007 he paid a token advance of Rs.10,000/- towards part of sale consideration and of the same day registration of the plot was fixed to 07.02.2007. However the opposite party stated to the complainant that the land owner was urgently in need of money and collected Rs.1,40,000/- on 26.01.2007 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.02.2007 i.e. before the date fixed for registration of the plot i.e. before 07.02.2007. Thus the opposite party collected from the complainant a total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards plot of sale consideration. The complainant having made ready the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,36,490/- and informed the opposite party about his ready ness for registration on 07.02.2007 as scheduled, but the opposite party dodged the matter on some ground or other and when the complainant pressurized the opposite party, to his utter surprise the opposite party stated that the plot owner was not interested in selling the plot and assured that he would arranged another plot. Even though the complainant requested the opposite party several times either to arrange another plot or to return the money paid by him the opposite party has been dodging the matter on some pretext or other, therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.11.12.2008 to the opposite party calling upon him to return the party
-3-
of sale consideration Rs. 2,50,000/- which was collected from the complainant on the dates mentioned above with interested 24% p.a. The said notice was sent to registered post and also through certificate of posting. The notice sent through registered post was returned with an endorsement “not claimed”. The notice sent through certificate of posting is deemed to have been received by the opposite party. As there is no response from the opposite party this complaint is filed.
2). Notice sent to the opposite party was returned with endorsement of post man as “party refused hence R/S”. Evidence affidavit of the complainant filed and marked Exs. A1 to A7 documents on his behalf. Written arguments filed. Oral arguments are also heard. Perused the record.
3). The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for return of the amounts collected from him by the opposite party towards sale consideration as prayed for in the complant?
Point:
4). Complainant’s case is that the opposite party does business in real estate and when he approached the opposite party for purchase of a house plot, the opposite party showed plot No. 344 in Sy. Nos. 809, 810 and 812 measuring in 297.3 Sq. yards situated in Shiva Shri Nagar, Rudraram Village and also showed the original documents relating to that plot stating that the said plot belonged to one Mr. Y.B. Raghavendra Rao and he intended to sell the said plot at Rs.1300/- per Sq. yard and the complainant agreed to purchase and paid a token advance of Rs. 10,000/- on 11.01.2007 and the date of registration was fixed at 07.02.2007. It is further the case of the complainant that the opposite party stated to him that the plot owner Mr. Y. B. Raghavendra Rao was urgently in need of money and collected from the complainant Rs. 1,40,000/- on 26.01.2007 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.02.2007 but later stated that the said plot owner was not interested in selling the plot and promised to arrange to another plot but failed. According to the complainant the opposite party has not even returned the amount, Hence the he filed his complaint.
-4-
5). To prove his contentions the complainant marked the following documents Ex. A1 is a stamped receipt dt.11.01.2007 passed by the opposite party in favour the complainant for Rs.10,000/- in connection with sale of plot stated above. Ex.A2 is a stamped receipt dt. 26.01.2007 passed by the plot owner Y.B. Raghvendra Rao for receipt of Rs.1,40,000/- from the complainant for sale of the said plot. Ex.A3 is a similar receipt dt 01.02.2007 passed by the opposite party for receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant in connection with the sale of the said plot. Ex.A4 is copy of legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.A5 is registration receipt. Ex. A6 is certificate of posting of a letter sent by the complainants advocate to the opposite party. Ex.A7 is returned registered cover sent by the complainants advocate to the opposite party.
6). From Exs. A1 to A3 it can be reasonably said without hesitation that the contentions of the complainant about the payments made by him to the opposite party for purchase of plot are true and that they are proved. From Exs. A4 to A7 it can also be reasonably presumed that the opposite party evaded to receive notice covered by Ex.A4 and he was in receipt of the said notice which was sent under Ex.A6 certificate of posting. It follows that the opposite party having no defense to make refused to receive Ex. A7 notice having known the contents through the notice sent through Ex. A6. In the circumstances discussed above the conduct of opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service towards the complainant, therefore he is liable refund the amounts received from the complainant. Even though Ex.A2 shows that Rs.1,40,000/- was received by Y.B. Raghavendra Rao, as the opposite party remained absent having known the contents of the complaint in which the complainant has stated that the opposite party received all the three amounts totaling Rs.2,50,000/-, it is deemed that the opposite party having received all the three amounts obtained Ex.A2 from the plot owner. Therefore the opposite party is liable to refund the total amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was collected by him from the complainant in three spells with interest, cots and damages. The point is answered in favour of the complainant.
-5-
7). In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and further to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this litigation.
Typed to dictation corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the 2nd day of April, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Ex.A1/dt.11.01.2007 - Receipt passed by the opposite
Party in favour of the complainant for
Rs. 10,000/-.
Ex.A2/dt.26.01.2007 - Receipt passed by Y.B. Raghavendra Rao
in favour of the complainant for
Rs. 1,40,000/-.
Ex.A3/dt.01.02.2007 - Receipt passed by the opposite
Party in favour of the complainant for
Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Ex.A4/dt. 11.12.2008 - office copy of legal notice sent
By the complainant’s advocate to the
Opposite party.
Ex.A5/dt.11.12.2008 - postal registration receipt
-6-
Ex.A6/dt.11.12.2008 - certificate of postal
Ex.A7/dt. 11.12.2008 - returned registered cover sent by
Complainant’s advocate to the opposite
party
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1) The Complainant Copy delivered to the Complainant/
2) The Opp.Parties opp.Parties On ________
3) Spare copy
Dis.No. /2009, dt.
