….Opposite Party
This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 8-4-2008 Complainant appeared in person, and of Sri.K.P.Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate for the opposite party ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha,Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a retired Government Employee, resident of Khammam Town. The opposite party made vide publicity in the month of June 1979, proposed to take up Housing Scheme at Khammam Town, by attracting the same the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- on 23-6-1979 to the A.P.H.B., Hyderabad towards initial deposit along with an application for registration of name of the complainant for allotment of M.I.G. house in the said scheme and after considering the application, the opposite party demanded the complainant to pay 10% of the estimated cost of proposed house as per letter No.04757/E2/EM/RHE/WGL/1991, dated 28-10-1991, accordingly the complainant paid the said amount of Rs.10,435/- vide D.D.No.OL/5 0998437, dated 23-11-1991 and sent the same along with a letter dated 24-11-1991 after that the opposite party issued vide Lr.No.2058/DB/D3/EEH/ WGL/94/MIG/04757, stating that the complainant shall attend the meeting at R.D.O. Office, Khammam on 13-4-1994, to settle the cost of the proposed land for acquisition with land owners, the complainant attended the meeting but it was not materialized. Again the opposite party issued another letter dated 11-10-1994 to the complainant and directed to meet the E.E., Housing, Warangal on 23-10-1994 at R&B Guest House, Khammam as such the complainant approached the E.E., Housing, Warangal and the complainant and some other applicants along with E.E., inspected the surrounding lands of the Khammam Town. The opposite party informed that the final decision would be informed after completion of discussion with the land owners but there is no response from the opposite party till today as such the complainant sustained heavy loss and approached the Forum for redressal along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.1000/-, which was deposited to the opposite party in the year 1979 and Rs.10,435/-, deposited to the opposite party in the year 1991 along with interest.
3. Along with the complaint the complainant filed affidavit and also filed xerox copies of (i)circular No.04757/E2/EM/RHE/WR/1991(ii) Letter dated 24-11-1991 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party.(iii) Lr.No.2058/DB/D3/EE(H)/ WR/94/MIG/04757, issued by the opposite party to the complainant.(iv)Letter dated 11-10-1994 issued by the opposite party.(v) Letter dated 6-2-2006 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party along with acknowledgements.
4. After condoning the delay the complaint was registered and after receipt of notice the opposite party appeared through it’s counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
5. In the counter the opposite party admitted that they issued paper publication at large to receive applications from the general public, the complainant submitted an application for allotment of MIG House and paid Rs.1000/- as registration fee and also paid Rs.10,435/- vide DDNo.998437, dated 23-11-1991 towards 10 % cost of estimation of MIG House and also stated that they issued a demand survey notification, is only an announcement of it’s proposal to take up a Housing scheme at a particular town or city, and it did not confer any right for allotment of House. The opposite party further stated that their efforts for aquisition of land at Dhamasalapuram could not materiliased due to hiking of cost of the land and severe opposition and legal obstacles from the land owners and they issued paper publication on 1-5-2004, asking the depositors to take back their amounts and finally on 13-10-2004 they issued another paper publication and informed the applicants, who failed to take back their amounts have been forfeited to the board. The opposite party further mentioned that there is no deficiency of service on their part and the complainant was given sufficient time to take back his amount which was deposited, and mentioned that there is no provision for payment of interest and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. Along with the counter the opposite party filed Xerox copies of (i) Paper publications, published in Eenadu Teulgu Daily, dated 23-2-2001, 30-4-2004, 13-10-2004 respectively.
7. The opposite party filed a memo to adopt the contents of counter as written arguments.
8. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties, now point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not.
9. As seen from the complaint and counter it is an admitted fact that the complainant joined in the scheme announced by the opposite party and as per the announcement of opposite party the complainant submitted his application along with an amount of Rs.1000/- on 23-6-1979 and after receiving the application the opposite party issued a circular dated 28-10-1991 demanding the complainant to pay 10% of cost of the House and the complainant obliged their demand and paid Rs.10,435/- vide DD no.OL/5 0998437, dated 23-11-1991. As seen from the above facts admitted by both the parties the opposite party announced the scheme in 1979 and taken 12 years of time for issuing the circular, demanding 10% of the estimated cost of the House. The opposite party taken 12years of time, only for the first step laid towards the scheme of constructing a House and it is quite negligent attitude that the opposite party taken another 13 years time for giving a notification by informing the complainant and other depositors to take back their deposits and all those would definitely constitute deficiency of service committed by the opposite party towards the complainant. On the other hand the opposite party stated in their counter that the scheme was not materialized due to severe opposition and legal obstacles from the land owners and also hiking of cost of the land. Even though there might be some obstacles as alleged by the opposite party in their counter for acquiring land, but it is their duty to inform the same to the complainant and return the deposited amounts immediately. The Hon’ble Supreme court delivered the judgement in Ghaziabad Development authority Vs Balbir Singh,2004 CTJ 605(SC) (CP)=[II(2004)CPJ 12(SC)] “Irrespective of whether there was genuine reason to cancel or not, the monies must be returned with interest @ 18%”. The National Commission observed in Ramesh Kumar Dua Vs Ghaziabad development authority, 2008 CTJ 36(CP)(NCDRC) , if a housing scheme is cancelled for any reason whatsoever, the complainant becomes entitled to refund of deposited amount with interest at 18% per annum.
In the light of above decisions the complainant is entitled to refund the deposited amount with interest and the causing of delay and the entire things happened clearly shows the sheer negligence on the part of the opposite party and as such the opposite party is bound to return the same for an amount of Rs.11,435/- to the complainant forthwith. As such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
10. In the result the C.C. is allowed and directed the opposite party to refund the deposited amounts of Rs.1000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from 23-6-1979 and Rs.10,435/- together with interest 18% per annum from 23-11-1991 till the date of realization to the complainant and also directed to pay cost of Rs.1000/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 11th day of April, 2008.
I/cPresident Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Nil
I/c President Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
