Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/36/2015

Deepatla Venkataswami Reddy, S/o. D.Rami Reddy, aged 56 years. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Janachaithanya Housing Pvt., Ltd., By its authorized signatory - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                Filing Date:-10-08-2015                                                                                                               Order Date: -29-03-2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. M. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                     Smt. T. Anitha, Member.

          TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND

                                                             AND SIXTEEN

C.C.No.36/2015

Between

Deepatla Venkataswami Reddy,

S/o. D. Rami Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 56 years,

R/at: 7-240, Santhi Nagar,

M.R. Palle,

Tirupati-2,

Chittoor District.                                                                        …. Complainant

 

And

1)Janachaitanya Housing Pvt., Ltd.,

   By its Authorised Signatory,

   195-196, 2^nd Floor,

   Balaji Complex,

   Prakasam Road,

   Tirupati, Chittoor District.   

 

2) Janachaitanya Housing Pvt., Ltd.,

    By its Managing Director M. Sudhakar,

   Chowdary Mansion, Ameerpet,

   Hyderabad – 500 016.                                                          …. Opposite parties

 

           This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 02.03.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant and Sri.K. Subramanyam Raju, counsel for the opposite parties having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

          This complaint is filed under Sections -12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this forum to pass an order directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to register the house plot or in alternative to pay the present market value of the house plot of Rs. 3,40,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to pay Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint.

           2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant submitted that the opposite parties are having main office at Hyderabad and Branch office at Tirupati and floated the housing scheme by the name of  lay out “SAI ESWARA” offering house plot of 200 square yards with a cost of Rs.145/- per square yard. The cost of the plot can be paid in 40 monthly installments and also mentioned that only to some extent of the land was acquired and the layout will be taken up later.  Accordingly the complainant also joined in the scheme on 09.03.1996 for allotment of house plot by paying registration fee of Rs.100/- and pass book no. 152 was allotted to him.  Accordingly he paid 24 installments  in total he paid Rs.29,000/- by 22.05.1999.  Even after completion of the scheme the opposite parties failed to approve the said layout from the competent authority and also failed to register the plot in the name of the complainant.   

           3. The complainant further submits that as per his enquiry with the registration office at Chandhragiri he came to know that the present market value  per square yard  in the said layout is Rs.1,700/- and the house plot of 200 square yards will costs of Rs.3,40,000/- and frustrated for the inordinate delay in registering the plot, the complainant issued a legal notice on 14.07.2015 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 calling upon them to register  the plot or in alternative, to pay the present market value of the plot of Rs.3,40,000/-. After receipt of the said notice the opposite parties failed to comply with the same. Hence he filed the present complaint.

           4.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 came in to appearance and filed the written version of opposite party no.1 and the same was adopted by opposite party no.2.  The opposite parties in their written version admitted that  they floated the scheme for the house plots and the complainant joined in the scheme  on 09.03.1996 for the allotment of house plot of  200 square yards and  they issued  pass book no. 152 is true.  The opposite parties further contended that the complainant has not paid Rs.29,000/- as alleged in the complaint and as per ledger extract pertaining to the complainant he paid only Rs.27,600/-  and also contended that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and hence he cannot get any benefits or plot as alleged in the complaint and also contended that the present market value of the plot  per square yard is Rs.1,700/- and the house plot of 200 square yards comes out of 3,40,000/- is true and also the opposite parties  stated that the complainant violated the terms and conditions  that are put forth by the company at the time of issuing  of pass book by defaulting some payment  and also the complainant did not paid any developmental charges and registration charges. Hence he is not entitled for any amounts and  the last transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties was made in the year 1996 and after lapse of 9 years he sent a legal notice on 14.07.2015 and he filed the present complaint. Hence this complaint is barred by limitation on this ground also the complaint is liable to be dismissed and also the complainant is not approached this Forum with clean hands as he is a defaulter. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          5.   The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. On behalf of the opposite party No.1, one B. Kameswar Rao, S/o. Tata bai working as branch manager of the opposite party no.1 filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex.B1 was marked. Both parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

        6.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i)  Whether the complaint is filed within limitation?

              (ii)Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties?

              (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

              (iv)  To what Result?

          7. Point No:-(i). In the present case the complainant joined in the scheme of the opposite parties on 09.03.1996 and obtained a pass book and accordingly he paid 24 installments and totally he paid Rs.29,000/- by 22.05.1999. After receipt of the total cost of the plot, the opposite parties failed to approve the plot from the competent authorities and failed to register the plot in the name of the complainant till today.  Hence the opposite parties duty is to discharge their obligation to register the plot or to refund the present market value of the plot which they failed to do so. Therefore the cause of action is continuous till the plot is registered or till the refund of amount which was deposited by the complainant.  In support of his version, the learned counsel for the complainant relied on a decision reported in I (2002) CPJ 317 – Housing Commissioner U.P   Housing & Development Board &  Anr.  Vs. Purushothamkumar, in which their lordships held in respect of limitation, the cause of action continuous till allotment of plot or refund of deposited amount, complaint is not time barred. In the present case also the opposite parties failed to refund the amount paid by the complainant till today or to register the plot in the name of the complainant as agreed by them. Hence it would be a continuous process and till the plot is registered by way of executing registered sale deed in the name of the complainant. In our view, this complaint is very much within time and the complaint is not barred by limitation. Accordingly this point is answered. 

          8. Point:(ii).   There is no dispute that the opposite parties floated a scheme for the allotment of the house plots in the year 1996 on condition of paying amount in installments and allotted a pass book to the complainant under Ex.A1 for the purchase of the plot consists of 200 square yards and the consideration should be paid in 24 installments and same was admitted by the opposite parties. The main contention of the complainant is that he paid total amount of Rs.29,000/- towards cost of the plot by 22.05.1999. Even after receipt of the total cost of the plot the opposite parties failed to register the sale deed by approving the plot from competent authorities. The complainant further contended that even after receipt of the several notices issued by him the opposite parties failed to respond and register the plot. The complainant also stated that, the present market value of the plot was increased from 29,000/- to 3,40,000/- in order to prove the same the complainant marked Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 certificate issued by the sub – registrar of chandragiri dated 10.07.2015. The complainant further submits that, the opposite parties failed to discharge their obligation in time is nothing but deficiency of service and un- fair trade practice. But the counsel for the opposite parties contended that they have received an amount of Rs.27,600/- only not  Rs.29,000/- as alleged in the  complaint and also they have stated that the complainant is a defaulter in payment of installments and hence the complainant being a defaulter he is not entitled any amount and also in order to prove their contention one ledger copy of extract  i.e. Ex.B1 is marked which  shows the payments made by the complainant. And also stated that the complainant fabricated the entries in the pass book in order to get  wrongful gain but in order to prove his contention the opposite parties marked one Ex:B1the ledger copy regarding the payments made by the complainant to them and in the said ledger copy the payment regarding the installment dated (1) 29.05.1996 for Rs.400/- under receipt No.84883, (2)11.01.1999 for Rs.500/- under receipt No.18235 and (3) 09.03.1999 for Rs.500/- under receipt No.23622  these three entries were missing in the said ledger copy  compare to the Ex.A1 the pass book which shows the payments of the complainant towards installments to the opposite party. And in the said Ex.B1 the dates are not legible and also it was not signed by any authorized person hence it cannot be considered. As per Ex.A3 the valuation certificate issued by the sub-registrar of Chandragiri clearly shows that the present market value of the plot for which the installments was paid by the complainant was increased for Rs.1700/- per square yard which comes to Rs.3,40,000/- for 200 square yards it goes to show that the complainant also proved that the value of the plot has increased many fold  and also stated that if the opposite parties registered the plot in the name of the complainant in the year 1999 he may fetch good profit, but the opposite parties failed to do their part and diverted the above said amount for their business purposes rather than registering the plot in the name of the complainant.  In the above circumstances the complainant could proved the deficiency of service and the opposite parties failed to provide the services as agreed by proposing the layout plots and failed to register the same is not only amounts to deficiency of service but also amounts to un fair trade practice. 

          9. Point:(iii).   With regard to the relief claimed by the complainant that the present market value of the plot is increased to 3,40,000/- for 200 square yards, and  in order to prove the same he filed Ex.A3 which clearly shows that, the cost of the land has been increased many times and the complainant was deprived of securing any such equivalent plot. In the above circumstances the complainant is entitled for the relief of the market value of the said plot of Rs.3,40,000/- (Rupees three lakhs forty thousand only) and also he is entitled Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only)towards compensation for deficiency service and for mental agony suffered by the complainant and also  he is entitled  for the cost of Rs.2000/- (rupees two thousand only)towards litigation expenses.

         10.Point (iv):-    In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- (rupees three lakhs forty thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The opposite parties further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Failing which the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.

           Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 29^th day of March, 2016.

 

         Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Deepatla Venkataswami Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartIES.

 

RW-1: B. Kameswara Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Passbook in Original bearing No.152 issued by the Opposite Party No.1 at Tirupati to the Complainant. Dt: 09.03.1996.
	Carbon copy of application for issue of Market Value Certificate of immovable property covered under Survey No.581 etc. of Thondawada Village. Dt: 10.07.2015.
	Certificate (Original) issued by the Sub-Registrar of Chandragiri showing  the present market value at Rs.1,700/- per sq.yard which comes to Rs.3,40,000/- for 200 sq.yards. Dt: 10.07.2015. Dt: 10.07.2015.
	Office copy of legal notice to Opposite Parties 1 and 2. Dt: 14.07.2015.
	Postal Acknowledgements 2 in number from Opposite Party No.1 and 2. Dt: 17.07.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Attested copy of Ledger maintained by the Opposite Party pertaining to the subscription of the Complainant.

 

 

                                                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                                                    President

 

 

                                                             // TRUE COPY //

                                                             // BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati

 

 

 

Copies to:  (1).The Complainant.

                  (2).The Opposite parties.