Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/148/2012

Smt. Bhairi Jaya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Heritage Homes - Opp.Party(s)

U.S.V. Prasad

07 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:10-05.2012

                                                                                                Date of Order:07-07-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                                 Tuesday, the 7^th day of July, 2015.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.148/2012

Between:-

Smt. Bhairi Jaya, W/o late Jagannadha Rao,

Hindu, aged 45 years, resident at Quarter

No.223-D, Sector-XI, Beside Delhi Public

School, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam.

….. Complainant

And:-

Heritage Homes, SRILU  NAGAR,

represented by its Director, Sri. Gampala

Giridhar, S/o Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged 43

years, Office at Door No. 46-18-07, Madavaripeta,

Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                         …  Opposite Party     

                     

          This case coming on 01.07.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri U.S.V. Prasad & Sri P. Sukumar Rao, Advocates for the Complainant and  Sri  V.K. Viswanath, Advocate for the Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the  Opposite Party directing him to refund the total amount of Rs.2,62,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Sixty Two thousand only) with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of last payment i.e., 22.08.2003 till the date of realization; Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation with costs.

 

 

 

2.       The case of the Complainant in brief is that basing on the adverting to the advertisement made by the Opposite Party, he intended to secure a Plot in the Ventures undertaken by Heritage Homes and he submitted an application on which the Opposite Party sent a Sale Confirmation letter dated 14.03.2003 to him with certain terms and conditions, in which he agreed for total Sale Consideration of Rs.3,20,400/- and paid Sale Consideration for payment of Rs.2,62,000/- and confirmed the allotment of Plot No.63 to an extent of 267 Sq. yards covered by Survey No.71 P (Old) New Survey No.71/2D2 Tungalam Village, Gajuwaka Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam.  There-after the Opposite Party executed THE DEED OF KHARANAMA LETTER agreeing to execute a registered sale deed in her favour and thereafter informed the about layout of Plot approval and get ready for registration on that she paid total amount Rs.2,62,000/- which was acknowledged by the Opposite Party.    But till now the Opposite Party did not come forward to register the said plot his name and when she approached the Opposite Party postponed the matter on some pretext or other.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

3.       The case of the Opposite Party denying the material averments of the Complainant is that the submit transaction is a commercial transaction for valuable consideration and as subject to dispute is not within the purview of consumer dispute therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction.    The prior of the Complaint is nothing but seeking specific performance which cannot be granted without detailed enquiry.   In which the Civil Court alone his having jurisdiction and the Complainant approached this Forum with a malafide intention to make a wrongful gain.  

 

4.       That after the execution of Deed of Khararnama, the Complainant never evinced any interest in obtaining Registered Sale Deed and also in payment of the balance amount, the case of the Plot being Rs.2,80,350/- and the development cost being Rs.40,050/- but the Complainant paid only Rs.2,62,000/- and did not pay the balance amount.   As several other customers which similarly got the agreement from them have paid the balance amount in time and got the Registered Sale Deeds.   Inspite of they are readiness only due to the failure on the part of the Complainant in fulfilling her obligations, they could not able to Registered Sale Deed in her favour.   There are no bonafides on the part of the Complainant.   For these reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

5.       To prove the case on behalf of the Complainant, she filed her evidence affidavit   and got marked as Exs.A1 to A6.   On the other hand, on behalf of the Opposite Party, he filed his evidence affidavit.   No documents were marked for the Opposite Party.

 

6.       Ex.A1 is the original Sale Confirmation letter addressed by the Opposite Party to the Complainant dated 14.03.2003.   Ex.A2 is the original The Deed of Khararnama Letter executed an entered into between the Complainant and the Opposite Party dated 14.03.2003.   Ex.A3 is the original Receipt No.847 an amount of Rs.10,000/- issued by the Opposite Party  in favour of the Complainant  dated 03.03.2003.   Ex.A4 is the original Receipt No.849 an amount of Rs.5,000/- issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 06.03.2003.   Ex.A5 is the original Receipt No.860 an amount of Rs.80,000/- issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 16.03.2003.   Ex.A6 is the original letter issued by the Opposite Party pertaining to Receipt an amount of Rs.2,62,000/-  dated 22.08.2004.

 

7.       Both parties filed their respective written arguments.

8.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

9.       Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite   Parties and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

 

10.     As seen from Exs.A1 to A6 and from the case of the Opposite Party, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,62,000/- to the Opposite Party in the year, 2003 and 2004 on different occasions the total amount of Rs.2,62,000/- which was acknowledged by the Opposite Party.    Now according to the Complainant, inspite of her readiness to get the plot No.63 having an extent of 267 Sq. yards for registration; the Opposite Party did not come forward.   On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that inspite of their readiness the Complainant has not a approached for registration by paying the balance of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.58,000/-.   Admittedly to show that the Complainant has to pay the balance amount of Rs.58,000/- no proof is filed by the Opposite Party so also the approval plan correspondence, if any, is also not filed by the Opposite Party.   In the absence of such proof, it can be held due to the latches on the part of the Opposite Party only the Complainant inspite of  readiness could not get Registered Sale Deed for the Plot.   On a careful reading of evidence affidavit of complaint together with Ex.A1 to A6 we see no reason to disbelieve the case of the Complainant.   The acts of the Opposite Party clearly indicates there is any amount of deficiency of service on their part, therefore, the Complainant is entitled for return of the amount already paid by her to the Opposite Party including interest from the date of last payment i.e., on 22.08.2004.

 

11.     Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stages of our discussion what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled.   The rate of interest claimed by the Complainant is 24% p.a.  This rate of interest claimed by the Complainant appears to be excessive, of course, it is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A1 is in commercial in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is a licenced to claim interest @ 24% p.a. on Ex.A1.    But at the same time, it is an imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest.   Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. on Ex.A1 would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix at rate in question @ 9% p.a. on Ex.A1 in question.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

 

12.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of PW-1 that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Party and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is un-dispute fact that the Opposite Party did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.   Naturally that made have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 20,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.20,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered. 

 

13.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for refund of the sum of Rs.2,62,000/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Parties within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for claims for cost deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

 

14.     In the result, this Complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.2,62,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and Sixty two thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 22.08.2004 till the date of realization, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) towards costs to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.

    

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 7^th day of July, 2015.

 

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                               Sd/-

Male Member                      Lady Member                                 President

 

                                       APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	14.03.2003	Sale Confirmation letter addressed by the OP to the Complainant	Original
Ex.A02	14.03.2003	The Deed of Khararnama letter executed an entered into between the Complainant the OP	Original
Ex.A03	03.03.2003	Receipt No.847 an amount of Rs.10,000/- issued by the OP in favour of the Complainant	Original
Ex.A04	06.03.2003	Receipt No.849 an amount of Rs.5,000/- issued by the OP in favour of the Complainant	Original
Ex.A05	16.03.2003	Receipt No.860 an amount of Rs.80,000/- issued by the OP in favour of the Complainant	Original
Ex.A06	22.08.2004	Letter issued by the OP pertaining to Receipt an amount of Rs.2,62,000/-	Original

For the Opposite Party:-                                                                                                                          

                                      -Nil-

 

Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

Male Member                       Lady Member                                   President