Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/25/2015

Sangeetham Mani, S/o. S.Ramachandraiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Agri Gold Projects Ltd., (Real Estates Division), Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Mr. Seetharam Avas, - Opp.Party(s)

S.M.Jhan

18 Aug 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 06.04.2015

Order Date:18.08.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.25/2015

 

 

Between

 

 

Sangeetham Mani,

S/o. S.Ramachandraiah,

D.No.3-5,  45- Kothapalli Village & Post,

Irala mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         Agri Gold Projects Ltd. (Real Estate Division),

            Rep. by Vice Chairman, Mr. Seetharam Avas,

            No.6-3-680A/B, Thakur Mansion Lane,

            Somajiguda Circle,

            Panjagutta,

            Hyderabad.

 

2.         The Joint Managing Director,

            Rep. by A.H.S.V. Prasad,

            Agri Gold Farm Estate India Pvt. Ltd.,

            Agri Gold House,

            D.No.40-6-3, Plot No.6,

            Old Revenue Colony,

            Nimmagadda Somasankara Rao Street,

            M.G.Road,

            VIJAYAWADA – 520 010, A.P., India

 

3.         Mr. Narasimhulu,

            Branch In-charge,

            Agri Gold Farms Estate India Pvt. Ltd.,

            Upstair: Hero Show Room,

            Palamaner Road,

            Chittoor.

 

4.         Hari Iyangaru,

            Branch Manager,

            Agri Gold Farms Estate India Pvt. Ltd.,

            Beside Dhanalakshmi Bank,

            R.C.Road,

            Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 28.07.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.S.M.Jhan, counsel for complainant, and Kanchi Syamala, counsel for opposite party No.1, opposite party No.2 remained exparte, and complaint against opposite parties 3 and 4 is dismissed, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section - 12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs against opposite parties 1 to 4, 1) to direct the opposite parties to execute the registered sale deed in respect of plot No.638 under Eco Sandal Wood Project at Kadiri Sandal Wood Unit or in alternate to allot a plot under Ganesh Vanam Project at Mungilipattu and to execute sale deed in favour of complainant or to refund the amount of Rs.1,23,871/- along with interest, 2) to direct the opposite parties to return back Rs.60,000/- paid under Chandana Priya Project for plot No.2 situated at Madanapalli or to transfer the said amount to SSP project by multiplying the said amount in double and to pay the said amount to the complainant, 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- with accrued interest as per the contract of the said project, 4) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.40,000/- under ID No.1016771199 with matured validity amount Rs.51,250/-, and 5) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses and towards traveling charges of complainant to approach opposite parties at Vijayawada, Tirupati and Chitoor.    

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that opposite parties 1 and 2 are private organizations, started firms under the name and style of Agri Gold Projects Ltd., dealing with real-estate division, Agri Gold Farm Estate India Pvt. Ltd., with a motive to sell lands / plots under the scheme of own a land, owners pride and other schemes. Through those schemes collecting the amounts and also making fixed deposits in the organizations of opposite parties through opposite parties 3 and 4 or their agents and doing business.

            3.  That due to influence of opposite parties 3 and 4 through their agents, complainant agreed to purchase plot No.638 under Eco Sandal Wood project situated at Kadiri sandal wood unit and the opposite parties have colleted a sum of Rs.1,23,871/- under cash receipt No.31112 dt:24.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.50,300/- and another cash receipt No.31138 dt:08.01.2013 for a sum of Rs.73,571/- (totaling Rs.1,23,871/-) and the opposite parties also collected 10% extra amount being the plot No.638 is a corner plot and agreed to register the plot within 90 days from the date of receipts, but failed to execute registered sale deed as agreed, inspite of number of representations, they did not respond to those requests, that the complainant made a representation on 28.12.2013 for cancellation of plot and to refund the amount along with interest agreed thereon. He also submitted the original receipts to opposite party No.3, but the opposite parties did not take any action.

            4.  That the complainant also paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- under Eco Chandana Priya project, for purchasing plot No.2 situated at Madanapalli. Opposite party No.3 has collected Rs.30,000/- and issued remittance slip No.CR/308/1168 dt:17.10.2013, and also opposite party No.4 through his authorized signatory collected another sum of Rs.30,000/- and issued receipt No.33477 dt:25.10.2013. As the opposite parties are not showing in continuation of their business, the complainant requested to return the amount paid under Eco Chandana Priya Project along with accrued interest through his letter dt:04.04.2014 or otherwise demanded them to transfer the Eco Chandana Priya Project to SSP project, in which the amount will become double the amount, but in vain.    

            5.  That the complainant has invested Rs.25,000/- under Agri Gold Owners Pride Scheme under the customer ID No.301168115 dt:30.03.2013 for gaining maturity amount, opposite parties have not paid maturity amount The complainant paid Rs.40,000/- under monthly payment scheme under customer ID No.1016771199 dt:19.12.2012 under Agri Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd., for which opposite parties have issued receipt dt:20.12.2012. That the complainant is also entitled to receive offered amount of Rs.51,250/- under the said scheme vide receipt No.7831388. Thus the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,60,121/- as per matured validity. Complainant came to know that opposite parties were not doing active business and also he came to know through news items such as “Board Thippesina Agri Gold”, “Kathadarulaku Agri Gold Satagopam”. Complainant on 05.03.2015 got issued legal notice to opposite parties 1 to 3 but they did not respond. Hence the complaint.

            6.  Opposite party No.2, remained exparte on 07.04.2016. Complaint against opposite parties 3 and 4 was dismissed for default on 04.03.2016. Opposite party No.1 alone is the contesting party.

            7.  Opposite party No.1 filed its written version admitting that opposite party No.1 is dealing with real-estate and construction business. That the complainant paid Rs.1,23,871/- on booking plot No.638 in the venture “Eco Sandal Wood” situated at Kadiri. It is further contended that the complainant had understood and satisfied with the proposed tentative layout and terms and conditions of the scheme and signed on the application in token of accepting the same. That the opposite party never agreed to register the plot within 90 days from the date of receipts. The entire layout will be developed as per the scheme promoted by opposite parties. That the opposite party received a letter dt:28.12.2013 of the complainant requesting the 1^st opposite party to cancel the plot No.638. On that opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that as per Clause-11 of the application, in case the applicant wants to cancel the plot, the opposite party is entitled to forfeit 25% of the amount paid, in addition to the administrative charges, if any, incurred by the opposite party and the balance amount will be refunded only after the allotment of the plot to another member, but the complainant was silent till 08.03.2014. The opposite party allotted the plot No.638 to another customer as the complainant has not responded to the proposed refund. That the complainant himself is not willing to accept the balance amount. There is no communication after December 2013. In the meanwhile, 1^st opposite party allotted plot No.638 to another customer. The opposite parties are ready to register another plot, if the complainant is willing to get the same, to avoid the cancellation charges in the interest of the complainant. There is no cause of action for filing the complaint and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            8.  The complainant filed his chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. For opposite party No.1, Mr.A. Sita Rama Rao, Director of 1^st opposite party filed his evidence affidavit as R.W.1 and reported no documents on their behalf. Both complainant and opposite party No.1, filed their respective written arguments

            9.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and

       2 (since complaint against opposite parties 3 and 4 dismissed for default)?

(ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for? and to what

        relief?

10. Point No.(i):-  on perusal of the complaint and the written version filed by opposite party No.1, it is observed that opposite party No.1 Agri Gold Projects Ltd. is dealing with real-estate division represented by its Vice Chairman Mr.Seetharam Avas, Hyderabad. Opposite parties 2,3 and 4 are the branches of opposite party No.1, opposite party No.2 is the Agri Gold Farms Estate India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Joint Managing Director A.H.S.V.Prasad, 3^rd opposite party is also Agri Gold Farms Estate India Pvt. Ltd., Chittoor, represented by its Branch In-charge Mr.Narasimhulu, likewise opposite party No.4 is also Agri Gold Farms Estate India Pvt. Ltd., Tirupati, represented by its Branch Manager Hari Iyangaru. So, it is prima facie appears that opposite parties 2 to 4 are the branches of opposite party No.1, working under opposite party No.1 and dealing with real-estate business, they are working for promoting the business of opposite party No.1.

11.  At this stage, complainant agreed to purchase plot No.638 under ‘Eco Sandal Wood’ project, which is under the control of opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.1,23,871/-, as admitted by opposite party No.1. Opposite parties 3 and 4 have collected Rs.30,000/- each from the complainant for purchasing plot No.2 in ‘Eco Chandana Priya’ project at Madanapalle. Thus it amounts to Rs.60,000/- under remittance slip No.CR/308/1168 dt:17.10.2013, and under receipt No.33477 dt:25.10.2013 respectively. That the complainant also invested a sum of Rs.25,000/- under ‘Agri Gold Owners Pride Scheme’, under Customer ID No.301168115 dt:30.03.2013 for getting the maturity amount. Similarly, the complainant also paid Rs.40,000/- under monthly payment scheme under the Customer ID No.1016771199 dt:19.12.2012 under Agri Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd, and the opposite parties have passed on receipts No.7831388 dt:20.12.2012, these receipts are not in dispute. More particularly the receipt under Ex.A1 was admitted by 1^st opposite party. The complainant since could not get the plot registered in his name from opposite party No.1 and they also not responded for the representations made by the complainant under Ex.A2, which are 6 representations in number, the complainant has sent a letter to the opposite parties requesting them to cancel plot No.638 and allot another plot or transfer the amount to SSP project from Eco Chandana Priya project, but the             1^st opposite party neither registered the plot No.638 in the name of complainant nor refunded the amount of Rs.1,23,871/- to the complainant. The opposite party contended in its written version and also in its evidence affidavit that it was informed to the complainant that if the complainant wants to cancel the plot, the opposite party is entitled to forfeit 25% of the amount paid in addition to the incidental / administrative charges, if any, incurred and the remaining amount will be paid to the complainant, but the complainant did not give reply and there was no communication between the complainant and opposite party No.1 from December 2013 till March 2014. As there was no communication from the complainant, opposite party No.1 allotted plot No.638 to another customer, that the 1^st opposite party is ready to register another plot, if the complainant is willing to get the same to avoid cancellation charges. There were no documents filed on behalf of 1^st opposite party to show that    1^st opposite party has informed the complainant that if he wants to cancel the plot No.638, the 1^st opposite party will forfeit 25% of the amount paid, in addition to the incidental / administrative charges, and the balance amount will be refunded only after re-allotment of the said plot to a new member.

12.  Admittedly, opposite party No.1 has allotted plot No.638 to another person, but for the reasons best known to 1^st opposite party, it did not disclose to whom plot No.638 was allotted? When it was allotted? Who is the new customer? and  What is the sale price opposite party No.1 has collected from the so called new customer? that apart even after allotting plot No.638 to a new customer, opposite party No.1, failed to refund the amount to complainant. There is no evidence to show that opposite party No.1 has offered the amount already deposited by the complainant (Rs.1,23,871/-) or the balance amount after forfeiting 25% of the amount paid or       1^st opposite party is ready to allot another plot in another venture etc. So, simply saying something in the written version as well as in the evidence affidavit of R.W.1, it cannot be believed that they have properly exercised to pay back the amounts paid by the complainant. When there is no communication as stated by opposite party No.1 between 1^st opposite party and the complainant from December 2013 to March 2014, what are the steps that 1^st opposite party has taken to refund the amount to the complainant or to allot another plot to the complainant. Similarly, the opposite party did not communicate by way of notice to the complainant that plot No.638 is offered to another customer and it is to be allotted, if the complainant has no objection to do so. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1, as it failed to offer another plot to the complainant or to refund the amount paid by the complainant. The opposite party further contended that as per Clause No.11 of the agreement, opposite party No.1 is entitled to forfeit 25% of the amount paid, but no such terms and conditions were filed in the Forum. The complainant though filed some receipts under Ex.A1, it contains only terms 1 to 6 and a line from term No.7. Thus the contention of opposite party No.1 is proved to be false and not supported by any document. The opposite party No.1 failed to either file the agreement or terms and conditions on which it relied on.

13.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 have issued receipts covered by Ex.A3 in the name of complainant. Those receipts are from Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd. Opposite parties 2 to 4 are working under Agri Gold Projects Ltd. Likewise, the other receipt under Ex.A4 also under the head of Owner’s Pride under which the opposite party have collected Rs.25,000/- and it was duly signed by the Director S.K.Mastan on behalf of Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd. Ex.A5 is another receipt for Rs.45,000/- duly signed by the authorized signatory of Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd. Thus the receipts under Exs.A1 to A5 are the crucial documents to prove the case of complainant. The Agri Gold Projects Ltd. through its branches i.e. opposite parties 2 to 4 are promoting their business in real-estate and offering various schemes for the public. Thus Exs.A1,A2,A3,A4 and A5 place the vital role and basing on those documents the complainant has established that the opposite parties having collected huge amounts, a sum of Rs.2,53,871/- failed to comply with either of the schemes and allot the plots either in Eco Sandal Wood Project situated at Kadiri or allot plot in Eco Chandana Priya project situated at Madanapalle and also failed to repay Rs.25,000/- which was collected from the complainant under Agri Gold Owner’s Pride Scheme under customer ID No.301168115 dt:30.03.2013. Similarly, the opposite party failed to pay back the amount of Rs.40,000/- collected from the complainant under monthly payment scheme under customer ID No.1016771199 dt:19.12.2012. The said amount of Rs.40,000/- on maturity will be paid in a sum of Rs.51,250/-. These allegations were so made specifically by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 4, there is no specific denial of each allegation. Therefore, in our opinion, the opposite parties were found guilty of deficiency in service. Accordingly, this point is answered.

14.  Point No.(ii):-  To answer this point, we have to state that though the complaint is dismissed against opposite parties 3 and 4 for default on 04.03.2016, since the opposite parties 3 and 4 were also working for promoting the business of opposite party No.1, and also functioning under the control of opposite party No.2 or under the supervision of opposite party No.1, in the name and style of Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd, which is organized by opposite party No.1 Agri Gold Projects Ltd. and the opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 are working under the name and style of Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd, which is also part of opposite party No.1. They were working under different schemes like Eco Sandal Wood Project, Eco Chandana Priya Project, Month Payment Scheme, SSP project, Own a Land Owner’s Pride etc. schemes and collecting various amounts from the customers like the complainant herein. It is not the case of 1^st opposite party that opposite parties 2 to 4 are in no way concerned with opposite party No.1 and they are doing their business independently, whatever the amounts collected by opposite parties 2 to 4 were not remitted with opposite party No.1. Therefore, the liability can be fixed on opposite party No.1, which is the head office of opposite parties 2 to 4. Since the opposite parties 1 to 4 have collected amounts in total a sum of Rs.2,53,871/-, those amounts are to be pay back to the complainant with interest and the complainant is entitled to the amounts he paid with opposite parties 1 to 4 and also entitled to the compensation and costs of the litigation as well. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the reliefs sought for by the complainant.

In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.2,53,871/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty three thousand eight hundred and seventy one only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 06.04.2015 till realization, that opposite parties 1 and 2 also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, that the opposite parties 1 and 2 also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. Opposite parties 1 and 2 further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.                        

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 18^th day of August, 2016.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-         

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sangeetham Mani (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party/s.

 

RW-1: A. Sita Rama Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S.

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Receipt No.31112 for Rs.50, 300/- and Receipt No.31138 for Rs.73,571 issued by Agri Gold Projects Limited for the sale of plot No.638 under Eco Sandalwood Project. Dt: 24.12.2012. and 08.01.2013.
	Copies of Representation letters made by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties for the enforcement of the schemes or for refund of amount deposited. Dt: 28.12.2013, 08.03.2014, 04.04.2014, 07.07.2014, 11.08.2014, 04.03.2015.
	Photo copy of Remittance slip for Rs.30,000/- bearing slip No.CR/308/1168. Dt: 17.10.2013 & Cash Receipt bearing No.33477 for Rs.30,000/-issued by Opposite Parties No.3 & 4. Dt: 25.10.2013.
	Photo copy of Cash Receipt paid for Rs.25,000/- by the Complainant under Customer I.D.No.301168115.  Dt: 30.03.2013.
	Photo copy of Payment receipt bearing No.7831388 for Rs.50/- under Customer ID No.1016771199. Date of booking on 19.12.2012.  Date of Receipt on 20.12.2012.
	Office copy of the legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. Dt: 05.03.2015.
	Photo copy of Aadhaar Card of the Complainant.  Aadhaar Card No.4946 9722 3298.
	Postal Acknowledgements(3).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S.

 

NIL

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

             

              // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

               Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

          

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.