BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Saturday the 30th day of August, 2008
C.C.No. 49/08
Between:
G.V. Subba Reddy, S/o. Yella Reddy,
H.No.14-99, Bollavaram Street, Koilakuntla, Kurnool District.
… Complainant
Versus
1. H. Seshagiri Rao,
H.No.26/74, Chittari Street Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.
2. Managing Director,
Silpa Real Estates,
6-3-347/13 A,
Tejeswari Apartments,
Dwaraka Nagar Colony,
Punjagutta,
Hyderabad - 500 482.
… Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. T. Siva Kumar , Advocate, for the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Sri K. V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.49/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to register the plot No.577 at the Silpa Enclave Venture , in-favour of the complainant or to refund the present market value of the said plot , Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this case alleging the complainant joining of forty months scheme for sale of 200 square yards house plots at joining Hyderabad , Vijayawada highway road at Kothagudem Village – floated by the opposite parties , paying Rs.475 /- per month and as per the scheme the drawl of lucky dip every month for among members for allotting the plot and Rs.3,000/- and additional payment for selected plot and the complainant selecting plot No.577 of layout addressed to complainant on 23-11-1995 paying additional amount of Rs.3,000/- to opposite party No.2 and obtaining receipts for all payments and the opposite parties not register the plot in spite of payment of all installments and the opposite parties not even responding to the legal notices dated 2-8-2006 and 7-9-2006 and the acts of the opposite parties constitutes deficiency of service on their part and caused mental agony .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant while the opposite party No.2 remained ex-parte to the case proceedings the opposite party No.1 contested the case filling written version seeking dismissal of the case denying any of his deficiency as he credited amounts received to the account of opposite party No.2 and he is anything to do with the registration of the plot under the scheme which was floated by opposite party No.2 .
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A7 and his sworn affidavit in reiteration of complaint averments , the opposite party side has taken reliance on the sworn affidavit in reiteration of his defence.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the deficiencies of the opposite parties and thereby their liability to the complainants claim.
5. The EX.A7 is printed broacher of the scheme of house plots floated by Shilpa Enclaves . It envisages the tenure of the scheme as forty months and total plots covered under scheme as 1800 each of 200 square yards and the monthly installments is Rs.475/- and location of said plots under scheme is at Kothagudem village 21 Kms away to Dilsukhnagar and adjacent to Vijayawada highway and the address of said scheme floater as “ Silpa Real Estate , 6-3-347 by 13A Tejeswari Apartments , Dwarkapuri Colony Panjagutta , Hyderabad 500482” and thereby supporting the complaint contentions.
6. The complainant alleges that he paid all installments of the scheme . While the Ex.A1 and A2 envisage the receipt of first and second installments from the complainant by the floater of the scheme , the Ex.A5 letter dated 19-11-1998 mentions full amount paid and the written version sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 also says of the credit of all installments of the scheme paid by the complainant to the opposite party No.2 . In the absence of any material contradicting the above fact from the opposite party No.2 the same fact of the complainant paying of all installments of the scheme floated by opposite party No.2 remains established creating liability of its accountability on opposite party No.2 as per the stipulations of said scheme envisaged in Ex.A5 and A7 .
7. As the opposite party No.2 did not discharge his obligation of registration of the plot under the said scheme in spite of receiving all amounts of forty monthly installments , the legal notices in Ex. A 3 and A4 were caused to the opposite parties . But they were not responded denying any of their liability under said scheme towards the complainant .
8. No material is placed by the complainant side envisaging any joint liability of opposite party No.1 for registering the plot under said scheme or his any status as partner of said scheme to own him any liability to complaints claim . His alleged status of agent of the opposite party No.2 for mere collection of scheme installments from the members and crediting to the floater of the scheme being not establishes as otherwise there is any cause of action for the complainants claim on the opposite party No.1 . Hence the case of the complainant against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
9. As the physical position of the plot concerned in said scheme is not actually delivered to the complainant inspite of his payment of all installments of the scheme and lapse of more than a decade at the deficient conduct of the opposite party No.2 the complainant is not time barred as per the decision of the Hon’ble Union Territory Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandighar in Haryana Urban Development Authority and another Vs Dr.Pavan Kumar Guptha reported in I ( 2006) CPJ Pg.261 .
10. As the contentions of the complainant as to the deficiency of the opposite party No.2 in not registering the plot in spite of complete payment of installments of the scheme by the complainant , being not discredited by the opposite party No.2, by his implied conduct of not contesting the case , reaming exparte , the opposite party No.2 is remaining liable to make good of the complainants claim .
11. Hence the case of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party No.2 to register the plot No.577 of Slipa Enclave Venture in favour of the complainant or to pay the total amounts received from complainant under said scheme with 12% interest from the date of Ex.A5 . The opposite party No.2 shall also pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony occurred to the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite party No.2 and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this case as driven the complainant to the forum for redressal of his grievances . Time for compliance is one month from the date of the receipt of this order. In default the supra stated award amount shall be payable to the complainant by the opposite party No.2 with 15% interest from the date of default till realization as this scheme of opposite party No.2 is a commercial transaction with profit motive .
Dictated to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of August, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Cash receipt dated 23-3-1995 for Rs.675/-.
Ex.A2. Cash receipt dated 5-10-1995 for receipt of draft for Rs.475/-
.
Ex.A3. Office copy of legal notice dated 2-8-2006 along with postal acknowledgement and receipt.
Ex.A4. Office copy of legal notice dated 7-9-2006 along with two courier receipt.
Ex.A5. Letter dated 19-11-1998 by OP No.2 to complainant.
Ex.A6. Letter dated 23-11-1995 of OP No.2 to complainant along with lay out.
Ex.A7. Broucher of OP No.2 as to Silpa Enclave.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
