STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :

                                           At  HYDERABAD

                                                            FA 224 of 2014

                                                   AGAINST

                          CC NO.101/2012, DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY

Between :

1. Sri N. Ashok Kumar,

Authorized Signatory for

M/s. Aliens Developers Private Limited

Plot No. 57, Vittal Rao Nagar,

Aliens Space Station-1, Madhapur

Hyderabad – 500 081.

02.          M/s. Aliens Developers Private Limited

Represented by Managing Director Hari Challa and

Joint Managing Director Venkat Challa,

Plot No. 57, Vittal Rao Nagar,

Aliens Space Station-1, Madhapur

Hyderabad – 500 081.

03.               Hari Challa, Managing Director

M/s. Aliens Developers Private Limited

Plot No. 57, Vittal Rao Nagar,

Aliens Space Station-1, Madhapur

Hyderabad – 500 081.

04.         Venkat Challa,  Joint Managing Director

Plot No. 57, Vittal Rao Nagar,

Aliens Space Station-1, Madhapur

Hyderabad – 500 081.                    ..Appellants/opposite parties

And

B. Durga Prasad,

s/o Late Setharamaiah,

aged 65 yeas, Resident of H.No. 5-6-93,

Manikyamba colony, Rajendranagar,

Hyderabad – 500 030                          ..        Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellants/Opp. parties               : M/s.P.Rajasripathi rao

Counsel for the 1^st  Respondent/complainant       :  Party-in-person.

Coram                :

                 Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla         …      President

                                           And

                          Sri Patil Vithal Rao              …      Member

                          Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth  Day of November

                                  Two Thousand Seventeen

Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            ***

1)       This is an appeal  filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the  opposite parties  praying this Commission to set aside the  impugned order dated 07.08.2013  made in CC No. 101 of 2012  on the file of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy   and allow the appeal.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.

3).      The case of the complainant,  in brief, is that he was allotted  Flat No. 1260-A, admeasuring 1344 sq. feet @ Rs.2200/- per square feet.  after advance amount was paid  the opposite parties, changed to Flat No. 128 in 5^th floor and he issued 7 cheques worth about Rs.4.5 lakhs. He purchased the said flat on the assurance given  by them  that they would secure employment, arrange bank loan on the basis of the said employment, find a tenant for his flat and also arrange to have his plot sold. The opposite parties encashed only one cheque worth Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter they unilaterally cancelled and allotted the said flat to a third party and issued a cheque only for Rs.1,35,000/- which was also dishnoured on the ground of stop payment instructions by the opposite parties and failed to refund the entire amount. The acts of the opposite parties amount to cheating, criminal breach of trust, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parities to refund the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 12% pa from the date of payment, Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of investment and  harassment  together with costs.

4)       The opposite parties opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting advance payment of Rs.1,50,000/- in October, 2009 and contended that since the complainant failed to pay the remaining amount and expressed his inability and hence they have issued cheque in March, 2012, after deducting necessary charges, which was dis-honoured due to administrative reasons.  Thereafter, they have issued Demand Draft  for Rs.1,35,000/- which was refused by the complainant with an intention  to file the present litigation and the complainant is not entitled to more than that amount and they are ready to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5)       During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove  his case, the complainant   filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-21  and also filed written arguments and the opposite parties filed their affidavit evidence and no documents were marked.

6)       The District Forum, after considering the material available on record,  directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 12% PA from the date of payment , i.e..11.10.2009, till the date of realization and  to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service and mental agony within 30 days.

7)       Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties   preferred this appeal before this Commission.

8)       Both sides have advanced their arguments,   reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof. Respondent/complainant filed written arguments.   Heard both sides. 

9)       The points that arise for consideration are,

(i)       Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?

(ii)      To what relief ?

10).   Point No.1 :

There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant  paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellants/opposite parties by way of three cheques towards purchase of the revised  flat No. 128 in the 5^th floor in Aliens Space Station -1,. Gachibowli, Hyderabad.  There is no dispute that the said flat was cancelled. There is also no dispute that the appellants/opposite parties sent cheque for an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-Vide  Ex.A-12 towards refund of the amount paid by the respondent/ complainant in lieu of cancellation of the flat  and it was also dis-honured on 19.04.2012  on stop payment instruction.

11)     The allegation of the appellants/opposite parties is that they have canceled the flat on the request of the respondent/complainant expressing his inability to pay the remaining amount. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant rebutting the same argued that he issued seven cheques for an amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs including the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-to the appellants/opposite parties and the appellants company unilaterally cancelled  and the said flat was sold  to a third party and the appellants’ company utilized only for Rs.1,50,000/- and did not touch the remaining cheques. We have observed that there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent/complainant requested the appellants company to cancel the same. Hence the appellants company failed to prove their allegation.

12)     The further allegation of the appellants company is that they are entitled to deduct 10% of the amount paid by the respondent/complainant in refunding the amount for cancellation of the flat.  The appellants company did not file any agreement or condition in support of their allegation. Hence the respondent/complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by him. The averment of the respondent/complainant that the cheque in question for an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-  was issued after deducting 10% of the amount  under Ex.A.12   ( Original) was dishonoured and it   was accepted by the appellants’ company that it was due to administrative reasons which amounts to deficiency in service. The further contention of the appellants’ company that thereafter they have issued Demand Draft for Rs.1,35,000/- to the respondent/complainant and he refused to receive the same cannot be accepted as there was no such evidence on record and hence it cannot be believed as true. However, granting of compensation to an extent of Rs.2,00,000/- by the District Forum  is on higher side and hence  we are inclined to reduce the same to Rs.50,000/-.

13).              After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties  and the respondent/complainant,    we are of opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants company and there is no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order to the extent of refund of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 12% pa while reducing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. We are of the opinion that payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent/complainant will meet the ends of justice. 

14).    Point No. 2 :

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order dated 07.08.2013 in CC 101/2012 passed by the District Forum, Ranga Reddy is modified directing the appellants/opposite parties  to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 12% PA from the date of payment, i.e, 11.10.2009 till the date of realisation, while reducing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent/complainant. Time  for compliance four weeks.

                                                            PRESIDENT                     MEMBER                                                    Dated :  28.11..2017.