Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/236/2014

Karanam Pavan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Akshyaya Gold Farms and Willas India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

J.P Ranga

02 Dec 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:31-07.2014

                                                                                                Date of Order:02-12-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                          Tuesday, the 2^nd day of December, 2014.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.236/2014

Between:-

Karanam Pavan Kumar, S/o K. Nanda

Gopala Rao, Hindu, aged 33 years, Manager,

Sri Pejawar Adhoskaj Mutt, Sri Raghavendra

Swami Temple, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam-2.

….. Complainant

And:-

Akshyaya Gold Farms & Willas India Limited.,

represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Dr.No.47-14-9/9, 3^rd Floor, HDFC Bank Upstairs,

Potuluri Mansion, Dwarakanagar Main Road, Visakhapatnam-16.

                                                                                          …  Opposite Party    

                     

          This case coming on 02.12.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri J.P. Ranga and S.V.R.S. Swamy, Advocates for the Complainant and the Opposite Party is called absent and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party directing them to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- with interest thereon, and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3.,000/-for legal expenses with costs.

 

 2.      The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Opposite Party is engaged in the business of the Marketing and selling of Agriculture, pots, sites and other products in and around Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram District and offered to sell him S.No.138  of Jamadhala Village, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District measuring 2,700 Sft. which is acquired by the company stands as collateral security to the subscriber joined under OYLS equivalent to the value of amount paid by the subscriber,  and that the Opposite Party collected an amount of Rs.18,000/- from him from 27^th March, 2012 to 26^th March, 2013 “daily Rs.50/-“ and issued “Land Scheme Agreement” vide Subscription Code No. & Office Code 161820/7777 for the money received by the Opposite Party and that he paid last payment on 26.03.2013 and he asked the Opposite Party to do registration of the said plot in so many times, but in vain, and on that he got issued a legal notice and it was duly returned, and thus it amounts to deficiency of service.   Hence, this Complaint.      

 

3. Though notice issued to the Opposite Party, he did not turn up, inspite of issuing publication.  

 

4.       To prove the case of the Complainant, he filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.   On the other hand, the Opposite Party did not appear before this Forum.

 

5.       The Complainant filed written arguments.

 

6.       Heard the arguments of the Complainant.

 

7.       Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs of advance amount with interest, compensation damages and costs.

 

8.       The Complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly and categorically stated that the Opposite Party engaged in the business of the marketing and selling of Agricultural plots, sites and other products and in around the villages of Vizianagaram and Srikakulam District and the Opposite Party collected an amount of Rs.18,000/- from him from 27.03.2012 to 26.03.2013 daily Rs.50/- and they offered to sell S.No.138 of Jamadhala village, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District vide Ex.A1 i.e., own your “Land Scheme Agreement”.  Ex.A1 further shows this subscription Code No. and Office Code is 161820/7777 and his daily subscription is Rs.50/- and the total subscription payable to the company of Rs.18,000/- and the 1^st installment paid on 27.03.2012 and last installment is on 26.03.2013 and expire of agreement date is 25.04.2013.   It further discloses the value of the property offered by the company is Rs.19,500/- and the allotting units are 2,700 Sft.  Ex.A1 also discloses, it was duly issued by its Managing Director with Stamp thereon,   and the Opposite Party collected an amount of Rs.18,000/- from the Complainant and issued the same showing last payment was made on 26.03.2013.   Thus, it is evident that the Complainant proved vide Ex.A1, that the Opposite Party collected Rs.18,000/- from him.

 

9.       Since payment was made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, it is for them to register the plot as agreed under Ex.A1.   The evidence PW-1 reveals that he demanded the Opposite Party to do registration on number of times but they have not co-operated and at last vide Ex.A2,  he got issued registered lawyer’s notice to the Opposite Party but unfortunately, it was returned with an endorsement no such addressee in the Door No.4-6-14.   To show that he issued lawyer’s notice, he relied upon Ex.A3 receipt.   On a careful reading of Exs.A1 to A4, we are of the considered view that inspite of repeated demands made by the Complainant, there was no response from the Opposite Party and  that the evidence of PW-1 is unchallenged and clinches the acts of the Opposite Party  amounting to deficiency of service, therefore, the Complainant is entitled to recover the amount paid by him to the Opposite Party of Rs.18,000/-.  

 

 10.    Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled.   The rate of interest claimed by the Complainant is 9% p.a.  This rate of interest claimed by the Complainant appears to be excessive, of course, it is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A1 is in commercial in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is a licenced to claim interest @ 9% p.a. on Ex.A1.    But at the same time, it is imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest.   Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix at rate in question @ 9% p.a. on Ex.A1 in question.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

 

11.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of PW-1 that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Parties and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is un-dispute fact that the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.   Naturally that made have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award and compensation of 2,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.2,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

 

12.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for refund of the sum of Rs.18,000/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Party within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

 

13.     In the result, Complaint is allowed in part; directing the Opposite Party: a) to pay an amount of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a. and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) to the Complainant.    Time for compliance, one month.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 2^nd day of December, 2014.

  Sd/-                                                 Sd/-                                                Sd/-

Male Member                     Lady Member                                     President

                            

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A1	26,03.2013	Own Your Land Scheme Agreement	Original.
Ex.A2	03.06.2014	Registered Lawyer’s Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to OP	Office copy
Ex.A3	03.06.2014	Postal Receipt.	Original
Ex.A4	04.06.2014	Acknowledgement Card with Postal Cover.	Original

For the Opposite Party:-                                             

-Nil-                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                         Sd/-            

Male Member                     Lady Member                             President