ORDER:

1.                     This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of CP Act, 1986 seeking for direction to the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 76,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from 12.05.06, to pay a sum of Rs.37,380/- towards the loss of the difference of the market value of the plot,  to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to him.

2.                     The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows: The opposite party is a developer engaged in the business of developing the housing sites and selling the same to the public on some attractive terms and conditions.  The opposite party represented that they floated a venture in Survey Nos. 193, 194, 196, 198 at Pedda Amberpet village and assured to develop the said venture in all respects and provide all the basic amenities like the division of plots, formation of roads, provision of the electricity and water.  The opposite party further represented that they had clear title over the site offered and they obtained the approval from the competent local authority to develop the house sites.  The opposite party further represented that they named the venture as “RAVI TEJA COLONY II” and fixed the sale consideration at Rs.72,000/- for the plot admeasuring 200 Sq.yards and the cost of the plot could be paid in 30 monthly installments.  It is further represented that if the extent of any plot is more than 200 Sq.yards the purchaser has to pay the excess amount at the rate of Rs.360/- per Sq.yard for the excess area.  Similarly if the extent of the plot is less than 200 Sq.yards the opposite party would refund the amount at the rate of Rs.360 per Sq.yard for the deficit area.  The opposite party also offered several prizes to the winners in the lots drawn in specified months.  The complainant joined in the scheme floated by the opposite party and subscribed for the plot No. 85 admeasuring 267 Sq.yards at the rate of Rs.360/- per Sq.yard and he was issued a pass book No.321.  The complainant paid the last installment on 12.05.06.  The opposite party also executed an agreement of sale on 29.11.2003 in favour of the complainant.  The cost of the plot admeasuring 267 Sq.yards works out to Rs.96,120/-.    The complainant paid total amount of Rs. 76,000/- towards the cost of the plot.  As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the excess amount shall be paid for the excess area at the time of registration of the plot.   The opposite party made entries in the pass book regarding payments made by the complainant.  Even though the opposite party received cost of the plot he did not make any development in the venture.  It came to be known to the complainant that the opposite party did not obtain the layout approval from the competent local authority and he had no clear title over the site where the plots were proposed to be developed.  So without having clear title over the land and without obtaining the layout approval from the competent local authority the opposite party floated the venture and collected the amounts from the intending purchasers.  So the acts of the opposite parties amount to adopting Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in service. The opposite party sold away the plot allotted to the complainant to third parties even though he received more than the amount payable towards the plot admeasuring 200 Sq.yards    from the complainant.  The opposite party postponed the execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant on some pretext or the other. Hence the complaint. 

Due to the proposal of outer ring road the market value of the lands near the venture has increased to Rs. 500/- per Sq.yard.  The complainant sustained loss of Rs. 37,380/- due to the increase in the market value.

3.                     The opposite party filed the counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and stated that the complainant is put to strict proof of all those allegations.  The opposite party further stated that the scheme floated by them has failed due to non cooperation of the original owners of the land.  The opposite party further stated that they are ready to refund the amounts paid by the complainant, if the complainant produced proper receipts evidencing   the payments.  It is further stated that in view of the criminal complaints filed by some persons the police seized the registers and therefore they are not in a position to say whether the alleged  payments are true or not.   It is further stated that they did not adopt any Unfair Trade Practice and there is no deficiency in their service and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     Points for consideration are:

1) whether the opposite party adopted Unfair Trade Practice?

2) whether there is deficiency in the service of opposite party?

3) whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

4) To what relief is the complainant entitled?

5.                     The complainant filed his affidavit and produced the documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A7.  The opposite party   filed the affidavit of its Managing Director but did not produce any documents. 

6. Point 1:            The opposite party stated in their counter that they would pay the amounts to the complainant if the complainant produced proper receipts evidencing   the payment of   amounts.  Ex.A5 is the pass book issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.  As per the entries made in Ex.A5  the complainant paid Rs.76,000/- to the opposite party by 12.05.06.  The opposite party also put initials   acknowledging the receipt of the amounts shown in Ex.A5.  Ex.A7 is the bunch of the receipts filed by the complainant evidencing the payment of amounts to the opposite party.  Ex.A6 is the agreement of sale entered into between the complainant and the opposite party.  As per the recitals made in   Ex.A6 the complainant was allotted plot No.85 in Survey Nos. 193, 194, 196 & 198 admeasuring   267 Sq.yards situated in Pedda Amberpet,  Hyderabad East, Ranga Reddy District.  The cost of the plot admeasuring 267 Sq.yards was mentioned as Rs.96,120/- in Ex.A6.  As per Ex.A5 the complainant was very regular in payment of installments till 12.05.06.  It is averred in the complaint that after the payment of Rs.76,000/- the complainant came to know that there was no development in the venture as represented by the opposite party and the opposite party did not even lay the roads, or provide electricity connection or water connection.  The opposite party also stated in their counter that the scheme floated by them failed due to the non cooperation of the original owners of the land and the complainant had knowledge of the same.  In the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party also it is stated that the scheme floated by the opposite party failed due to non cooperation of the original owners of the land. So it is clear from the contents of the counter as well as written arguments filed on behalf of the opposite party that the opposite party could not complete the scheme floated by them due to non cooperation of the original owners.  In view of the contention of the opposite party it is clearly proved that no developmental works were carried out in the venture as promised by the opposite party.  Unless the opposite party was at fault they would not have stated in the counter that they would be ready to pay the amounts paid by the complainant if the complainants produced proper receipts   evidencing the payments.  The very fact that the opposite party expressed their readiness to pay the amounts paid by the complainants would clearly go to show that they were at fault.  Since the opposite party failed to implement the scheme floated by them we hold that there is deficiency in their service.  Hence we answer this point in favour of the complainant. 

7. Point 2:            In view of our finding on point 1 we hold that the complainant is entitled to seek refund of the payments made by him from the opposite party.  The complainant sought for refund of Rs.76,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 12.05.06.  The complainant is entitled to seek the refund of Rs.76,000/-.  As far as interest is concerned the rate of interest claimed by the complainant is on higher side.  In our view   15% p.a. is reasonable. The complainant claimed Rs.37,380/- towards the loss due to the increase of the market value of the lands at the venture proposed to be developed by opposite party.  The complainant has not produced any document to show that the present market value is Rs.500 per sq.yard.  The complainant cannot seek this relief as he failed to produce any documents to show the present market value of the land near the venture proposed by the opposite party. So we are of the view that he is not entitled to claim any amount on the ground that the market value has increased.  The complainant also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered by him.   As far as compensation is concerned we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to claim compensation for the deficiency in the service of the opposite party.  In our view Rs.25,000/- is   reasonable compensation.  Hence we hold that the complainant is entitled to claim Rs.25,000/- as compensation and in addition to compensation he is entitled to claim Rs.2,000/- as costs.  Hence we answer accordingly.

8. Point 3:            In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.76,000/-(Rupees Seventy Six Thousand Only) along with interest @ 15% p.a. from 13.05.06 and also pay Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand Only) as costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  The rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected. 

Dictated to the Shorthand-writer and transcribed by her and corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2008.

MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT