This case is coming for final hearing on 25.08.2014 in the presence of Sri R.S.S.Swarup Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri C.R.Vasanth Kumar Advocate for Opposite Party and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1.     The brief facts of the Complaint are that the Complainant took a house plot from Opposite party in Sai Vishnu Extension-II/A venture on 16.12.2000 and the Opposite party allotted Plot No.172 measuring 220sq.yds.  The total cost of the Plot is Rs.72,600/- and the same was paid by the Complainant in different intervals and the Opposite Party used to receive the same and issued receipts for the said amount.  Finally on 6.05.2005 Opposite party issued a Letter confirming that the entire amount was paid by he Complainant.  The Complainant stated that he paid full amount as on 06.05.2005 and approached the Opposite party and demanded them to allot Plot and to register it in his favour.  But the Opposite party postponed the issue, then in the year December 2009, the Complainant again approached the Opposite Party and demanded them to return the entire amount of Rs.72,600/- along with interest but the Opposite party postponed the same on one pretext or the other, which clearly shows deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party.  Because of the acts of the Opposite party, the Complainant sustained huge loss by investing huge amount in the year 2005 itself to purchase the Plot which might have raised up to Rs.3,00,000/- now, but due to non-payment of amount or non-allotment of the Plot, the Complainant sustained huge loss, hence the Opposite party has to pay compensation.  As such this complaint to direct the Opposite party;

a)     To pay Rs.72,500/- with 24% interest from 06.05.2005 till the date of payment.

b)     To pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation besides costs.

2.     On the other hand, the Opposite party filed its counter and denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and pleaded that the process of development and the method and procedure for obtaining the approval were clearly explained to the Complainant at the time of admission.  There were many unanticipated hurdles such as change of Government Policies, Rules and Regulations and the Opposite party initially fixed the prices basing on the costs at that point of time, but after that because of changes and stricter conditions imposed by the Statutory Authorities for releasing of layout permission, the members have to bear the rates ruling at the time of registration.  Besides developing the layout as per the requirements of the Statutory Authorities the Opposite party also complied with the high demand for processing and plans, conversion charges in addition to the amounts already paid to the Statutory Authorities which in turn benefits the Complainant for effective use to the property and the Complainants knows about the development of layout, but trying to avoid part of contract even though he has specifically agreed for the same.  The Opposite party stated that after all the hard work over the period of time and having accompanied job, the Opposite party could get the L.P. approval vide L.P.No.2/2010 dated 07.01.2010, hence there is no deficiency in service and complainant failed to meet the extra charges only with a view to avoid his contractual obligation.  The Opposite party registered the Plots to those members who have paid development charges as agreed upon and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party, hence, the Complainant cannot claim the reliefs.  The other plea of the Opposite party is that, the name of the Opposite party is Jana Chaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd., and filing of the complaint in the name and style as mentioned by the Complainant will not legally bind on the Opposite party and on the ground the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

3.     At the time of enquiry the Complainant filed evidence affidavit along with a document which is marked as Ex.A1.  On the other hand, the Opposite party filed its counter and evidence affidavit, but no documents are marked on behalf of the Opposite party.  No written arguments filed by both sides and as there is no representation by the Complainant at the time of hearing, hence treated it heard. Heard the Counsel for Opposite party who reiterated his version.

4.     In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

5.     The Opposite party admitted about the Sai Vishnu Extension-IIA venture and also admitted about the allotment of house plot to the complainant bearing No.172 measuring 220sq.yds and the payment received by the Complainant in different intervals towards total consideration.  Ex.A.1 is the letter issued by the Opposite party to the Complainant on 06.05.2005 regarding payment confirmation, where in the Opposite party clearly mentioned that: “We thank you for payment of total plot cost against your Pass Book bearing No.162 of Sai Vishnu-IIA venture and we furnished below the details of your account and the Opposite party furnished the account details and showed as total plot cost is Rs.72,600/- paid by the complainant”.  It clearly shows that the Complainant paid Rs.72,600/- towards total sale consideration.  The payment made by the Complainant also agreed by the Opposite party in its evidence affidavit, but they did not mention about the amount in its Affidavit, but they agreed that the Complainant paid the plot cost in different intervals in para-2 of their affidavit, but Ex.A1 clearly shows that the Complainant paid total sale consideration to the Opposite party, but the Complainant did not file pass book and receipts issued by the Opposite party, as mentioned in the Complaint regarding the issuance of receipts.

6.     The plea of the Opposite party is that the Complainant failed to pay the Development charges and the Complainant not approached the opposite party and even though the Opposite party explained about the procedure for obtaining approvals and more over Complainant avoid his contractual obligation regarding payment of extra charges etc., but it is to be noted that no notice of demand regarding the additional charges is issued by the Opposite party. 

7.     Evidently, the Complainant paid total amount of Rs.72,600/- to purchase a plot in different intervals and after that he roamed around the office of the Opposite party to register the Plot in the name of the Complainant, but they postponed the issue, then the Complainant demanded the Opposite party to refund the amount.  As mentioned by the Opposite party in its counter, regarding obtaining of L.P. is not substantiated by the Opposite party by filing any document.  The Opposite party also not issued any letter to the Complainant regarding registration of plot on behalf of the Complainant by paying the Development charges which clearly shows their deficiency in service on its part.  Hence, the Opposite party is liable to pay the amount of Rs.72,600/- to the Complainant with 9% interest from the date of last payment which would be just and proper.  The Opposite party’s plea regarding the name of the Opposite party but the Complainant filed the Complaint and the Opposite party’s name is shown as Jana Chaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd., hence this plea is not take into consideration by this Forum.

8.     It is to be noted that there is no doubt that the Complainant suffered financially and mentally because of the acts of the Opposite party and even after total payments made by him the Complainant is deprived of having a own plot, though he invested the total amount in the year 2005, hence allowing 9% interest on the amount paid by him from the date of last payment is justified.  The Complainant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation, but in our view, because of the acts of Opposite party, the Complainant suffered a lot financially and mentally, hence, the Opposite party is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation which would be just and proper. 

        Accordingly, this point is answered holding that the Opposite party is liable to pay Rs.72,600/- with 9% p.a. interest from 06.05.2005 to the Complainant besides compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

9.     In the result, the Complaint is allowed directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.72,600/- with 9% interest from 06.05.2005 to the Complainant within three months, failing which to pay the same with 12% p.a. interest till the date of payment.  The Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of September, 2014.

   Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                        Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party: NIL

   Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//