BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No. 486/2002<br /> Dated: 30..05..2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> A.M.Anwar, House No.66, Prasanth Nagar, <br /> Medical College – P.O., Trivandrum.<br /> (By Advocate Shri.P.A. Ahammed)<br /> Opposite party:<br /> George Maijo, Managing Director, George Maijo Agro Products Limited, Meerlan Towers, 2nd Floor, No.33, Hanumantha Road, Balaji Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai– 600 014. <br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 05..01..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 05..05..2008, the Forum on 30..05..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:<br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant agreed to purchase two plots namely 324 & 325 for a sum of Rs. 1,65,312/-. The opposite party through his authorised representative used to collect money for which valid receipts were issued and thus the entire money as per the agreement was paid. Even after the payment of the entire amount the opposite party did not hand over the land as per the terms of the agreement. After repeated requests and reminders on December, 2000 the sale deed No.2574/2000 & 2575/2000 of the SRO, Devikulam was forwarded to the complainant. As per the agreement the total amount as sale consideration paid to the opposite party was Rs.1,65,312/- whereas the total consideration for the property mentioned is Rs.11,580/-. Further after getting the sale deed the complainant went to Kottakamboor Village in Devikulam and to their surprise they could not see any identifiable land belonging to the opposite party. Hence the complainant issued a lawyer's notice calling upon the opposite party to refund the balance amount after deducting the sale consideration paid coming to the tune of Rs. 1,54,732/- and also to locate, demarcate the property and handover possession of the land, which the opposite party never cared to do so. Further no pattayam number is mentioned in the document and the complainant apprehends that there may not be any identifiable plot in that area. The action of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complainant directing the opposite party, to demarcate and handover possession of plot No.324 & 325 described in sale deed No.2574/2000 & 2575/2000 of the SRO, Devikulam and also to refund the balance amount of Rs.1,54,732/- at 18% interest per annum along with compensation and costs.<br /> The complainant has been examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on his side. He has not been cross examined hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. Opposite party remains ex-parte.<br /> The points to be considered are:<br /> (i)Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint?<br /> (ii)Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (iii)Reliefs and costs?<br /> Point No.(i): The complainant had agreed to purchase 2 plots from the opposite party and alleges that he had paid Rs.1,65,312/- for the same. Exts. P1 & P2 are the copies of agreement for sale of the said plots. The said agreements are seen entered at Chennai. The deed of conveyance which is Ext.P3, has been executed at Devikulam in Idukki District. Both the places are not within the jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant has pleaded that the representatives of opposite party used to come to the house of the complainant at Thiruvananthapuram to collect money and issued receipts for the same. Though the receipts are not produced, the deeds of conveyance Ext.P3 & P4 prove that the opposite party has received Rs.5,790/- each from the complainant totalling to Rs.11,580/-. The opposite party has not turned up to either contest or deny the fact that the money has not collected by his representatives from the complainant's house at Thiruvananthapuram. In such a circumstance the plea of the complainant stands undisputed and the Forum is of the view that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum.<br /> Points (i) & (ii): The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has not demarcated the property executed in the name of the complainant. On going through the agreement for sale, it is agreed by the opposite party that the opposite party shall carry out the necessary preliminary works like conducting survey of the lands, demarcation of each purchaser/s plots, clearing and other related works on behalf of the purchaser/s on the schedule property. But the complainant pleads that after getting the sale deed, when the complainant visited the said place, he could not see any identifiable demarcated land belonging to the opposite party which the opposite party was duty bound. The complainant has filed affidavit in support of his complaint which stands unchallenged, since he has not been cross examined. Hence this Forum is left with no other option than to believe the complainant and the said act of the opposite party in not demarcating the plots tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice<br /> The complainant further claims for refund of Rs. 1,54,732/- collected in excess from the complainant. The complainant has not produced any receipts proving the payment of the above mentioned amount. The Exhibits P1 & P2 produced by the complainant reveal that a total amount of Rs. 18,368+18,368= Rs.36,736/- has been collected from the complainant. But the deeds of conveyance prove that an amount of Rs.11,580/- only has been received from the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant has failed to establish that Rs.1,54,732/- has been paid to the opposite party. In our view the complaint is found entitled for the difference of amount of Rs.25,156/- with 18% interest as per the agreed rate of interest in the agreement.<br /> In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.25,156/- (Rupees twentyfive thousand one hundred and fiftysix only) with 12% interest to the complainant. The opposite party shall also demarcate and handover possession of plot No.324 & 325 described in sale deed No.2574/2000 & 2575/2000 of the Devikulam Sub Registrar Office. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs to the complainant within one month, failing which execution proceedings can be invoked.<br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.<br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No.486/2002<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I.Complainant's witness:<br /> PW1 : Sooraj<br /> II.Complainant's documents:<br /> P1 : True copy of agreement for sale and development of villa plots to plot No.324.<br /> P2 : True copy of agreement for sale and development of villa plots to plot No.325<br /> P3 : True copy of conveyance deed executed to plot No.324.<br /> P4 : True copy of conveyance deed executed to plot No.325<br /> P5 : True copy of advocate notice filed by the complainant.<br /> <br /> III.Opposite party's witness: N I L<br /> <br /> IV.Opposite party's documents: N I L.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br />