Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 31st day of August, 2004
C.D.No.3/2002
A.Nageswara Rao,
H.No.9/56, Krishna Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri P.Siva Sudarshan
-Vs-
1. D.Sivanagi Reddy,
H.No.25/528,
Srinivasa Nagar, Nandyal.
2. Shaik Mahaboob Saheb,
H.No.25/585, Upstairs,
Opp. Sri Rama Chits Company,
Srinivasa Nagar, Nandyal. . . . Opposite party No.1&2 represented
by his counsel Sri .M.Ramachandra Reddy.
3. Harinath Gupta,
H.No.3/551-C,
Rojagunta, Nandyal. . . . Opposite party No.3 represented by his counsel Sri K.Sreenivasa Reddy.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This Consumer Dispute complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund the amount received from the complainant with interest, Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and costs and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The gamut of the factual matrix is that the opposite parties have floated a scheme for the sale of plots under the name and style of “ Manjeera Estate Traders “ in Manjeera Nagar, Nandyal. As per the pamphlet of the scheme the size of the plot is 0.2 cents each and each member has to pay Rs.200/- per month over period of 60 months, subjected to the lottery by way of dip system wherein successful winner need not pay the subsequent monthly installments or balance amount, besides to some other attractive gifts were offered to the members. Accordingly being inspired the complainant joined scheme and booked one plot in his name on 21.8.1991vide membership number 114. He further alleges that he paid all the installments regularly for the totally period of 60 months and paid last installment on 28.9.1996. Inspite of several requests and demands from the complainant the opposite parties did not registered the plot infavour of the complainant. Thereafter the opposite parties did not take any steps for registering the plot or refunding the amount to the complainant. Therefore the complainant doubts the bonafidies of the entire scheme as he learnt that the opposite parties have not purchased sufficient land to the allotted plots to all the members of the scheme. As the conduct of the opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of service, the complainant was constrained to file this complainant before this Forum for redressal.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant filed the following documents Viz (1) a bunch of 60 receipts issued by Manjeera Estate Traders in favour of the complainant for Rs.200/- dt 21.8.1991 to 28.9.1996 and (2) Xerox copy of Manjeera Estate Traders printed card notice, besides to his sworn-affidavit in-reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1&A.2 for its appreciation in this case and suitable replied to the interrogatories filed by opposite parties.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1 &2 appeared through their counsel and contested the case by filing their denial written version and questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case. The opposite party No.3 appeared through its counsel and did not filed his written version but filed his sworn affidavit.
5. The written version of the opposite party No.1 & 2 admits the complainant as its member of the house plot scheme floated by opposite parties 1 to 3 and the complainant paid all installments at the rate of Rs.200/- per month for 60 months and the scheme was conducted on lottery basis. The complainant was allotted plot No. 462. After the completion of the scheme the opposite parties conducted meeting for all members and allotted plots to those persons who paid 60 monthly installments. It further submits that opposite parties purchased 18.00 cents and as per the partnership deed the opposite party No.2 executed sale deed in favour of about 400 members. All the persons who obtained registered sale deed purchased documents and bear the necessary registration expences. Now that Registration Act is amended, registration will be done only when both the vendor and vendee sign in the registers of sub register and submit two passport size photographs.
6. It further submits that the complainant was never ready to obtain registered sale deed and never came forward to bear registration expenses to obtain registered sale deed from opposite party No.2 who is executing on behalf of the firm. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and submits that opposite parties are ready to register the plots in favour of the complainant and seeks a direction on the complainant to obtain registered sale deed with his own expences from opposite party No.2 and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of its case the opposite party No.1 & 3 filed their sworn affidavits as evidence and did not file any documents.
8. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties:-
9. The points which are not disputed are that the complainant was a member of the house plot scheme of the opposite parties, and that the complainant paid Rs.200/- per month for 60 months and the complainant was allotted plot No. 462.
10. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties failed to excute the registered sale deed or refund the amount despite the completion of the scheme but as to it the opposite parties alleges in their written version that complainant did not came forward to obtain register sale deed in his favour and never approached the opposite parties to excute sale deed in respect of the plot allotted to the complainant and submits that the opposite parties are ready to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant, provided the complainant bear registration expences. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of the supra stated contentions of the opposite parties and as the complainant submits that registration of plot was not made in his favour, subsequent to the said statement of the complainant, the statement of the opposite parties on this aspect not only remains highly inconsistence, but also thereby un-trust worthy and as consisting of any bonafides of the opposite parties in that regard. Therefore what follows in that the opposite parties after completion of the scheme did not excute sale deed in favour of the complainant nor refund the amount received from the complainant.
11. The Ex A.1 is the bunch of 60 receipts issued by opposite parties in favour of the complainant, envisages payment of Rs.200/- per month for 60 months by the complainant to opposite parties for the purchase of plot at Manjeera Nagar. The Ex A.2 is the Xerox copy of printed card notice dt. Nil issued by opposite parties calling upon the members whose memberships are 112,113 &114, informing them, due to some un avoidable circumstances, they could not be able to register the above said plots and they have resolved difference between their partners and decided to register the above said plots and if there are any balances, which the complainants has to pay on or before 16.6.2000 and get the above said plots registered in their favour. From the facts borne in the above exhibits are not denied by the opposite party’s side. Hence from them it remains clear that the complainant joined as a member with opposite parties for purchase of house site plot by paying Rs.200/- per month for 60 months and alleges deficiency of service on part of opposite parties for not executing sale deed in his favour and claims refund of amount paid by the complainant with interest, besides to compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs.
12. The opposite parties except alleging defaultive and non cooperative conduct of complainant in not bearing the registration expences to register the plot did not substantiate their bonafides and malafides of the complainant by substantiating the same by any accepting and corroborative material.
13. Hence in the circumstances discussed above as there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in not registering the plot in favour of the complainant within the scheduled time and not keeping up its promise in doing the same. The complainant is certainly remaining entitled to compensation for suffering damage and mental agony, he faced at the deficient conduct and deficiency of service of the opposite parties, as per the unreported decision dt 1.10.2001of A.P.State Commission Dispute Redressal Commission between D.Siva Nagi Reddy Vs V.Anjaneyulu and others, where in it was held that the complainant is entitled to ask the opposite parties to execute the registered sale deed in respect of his plot, when the complainant has already paid the entire amount as per the scheme.
14. Therefore the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to register the plot in favour of the complainant or in case of its non feasibility of registration of plot, to refund the amount paid by the complainant with 12% interest from the date of last payment of installment till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2, 000/- as compensation towards mental agony suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties and Rs.1,000/- as costs as driven the complainant to Forum for redressal. The opposite parties are granted one month time from the date of receipt of this order for compliance.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us Pronounced in the Open Court this the 31st day of August, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite parties
ExA.1 Bunch of 60 receipts issued
by Manjeera Estate Traders in favour -Nil-
of complainant for Rs.200/-
ExA.2 Xerox copy Manjeera Estate Traders
printed card notice.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
