BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.

FA.No.1391/2007 against CC.No.268/2006 District Consumer Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Between:

Bommaraju Sai Babu,

S/o.Swaminath, Aged about 18 years,

Minor being rep. by his father and natural guardian

B.Swaminath, R/o.Lawyerpet, Near Labour Office,

Ongole, Pakasam District.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

Kasu Vara Prasad,

S/o.not known,

R/o.37-1-406 (98) Batti Buildings,

Besides H.P.Petrol Bunk,

Ongole – 523 001.

…Respondent/Opp.Party.

Counsel for the Appellant         : Mr.A.Rajendra Babu.

Counsel for the Respondent     : Service of notice held sufficient.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole granting inadequate amounts while partly allowing the complaint.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that when the opposite party floated a housing scheme, wherein he agreed to sell house plots in R.S.No.204 of Pernamitta Village of S.N.Padu Mandal, he joined as one of the Members agreeing to pay @ Rs.350/- for 45 months for allotment of house plot.  The opposite party allotted membership No.53.  When he approached him in the month of December, 2005 and paid Rs.8,000/- towards registration charges of the plot, however, he did not register the plot.  On that the complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to register the plot together with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs.

3.         The opposite party resisted the case.  He alleged that it was a partnership concern, wherein he was a Managing Partner.  Two more partners viz. Kasu Kondapa Naidu and Mohammed Dastagiri are there.  As per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the complainant should pay Rs.350/- per month for 45 months, and since the complainant did not pay monthly payment continuously for 3 months,  he became a defaulter and therefore, his membership was cancelled.  The said fact was informed to him by way of telegram directing him to pay the amount and get the plot registered.  However, he did not pay the amount.  An amount of Rs.8,000/- was never paid  Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency in service.

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3, while the opposite party got the documents marked as Exs.B.1 to B.4.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant had in all paid Rs.13,300/- which was evidenced by Ex.A.1, a bunch of 24 receipts, and therefore, directed the opposite party to pay the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from 11.10.1997 till the date of realization, together with compensation of Rs.1,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-. 

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in its correct perspective. It ought to have seen that he had paid the entire amount besides Rs.8,000/- towards registration charges.  The District Forum ought to have ordered registration of the house plot in his favour.

7.         The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact and law in this regard?

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the opposite party floated scheme, wherein he agreed to sell house plots on payment of Rs.350/- per month for 45 months.  According to the complainant he paid the entire amount besides Rs,8,000/- towards registration charges.  Despite his request, the opposite party did not choose to register the plot.  The complainant filed Ex.A.1, a bunch of 24 receipts issued by the opposite party.  The complainant could not file the remaining receipts to show that he had paid the entire sale consideration, equally the amount of Rs.8000/- towards registration charges.  Except his oral assertions, no document whatsoever was filed.  If really the complainant had paid the entire amount there is no reason why he did not take receipts evidencing payment.  The opposite party issued a telegram, Ex.B.2 directing the complainant to pay the balance amount and get the sale deed registered.  When they wound up the scheme followed by a telegram Ex.B.2, the complainant did not choose to act.  He did not contradict the said fact.  Considering the circumstances, the District Forum has rightly ordered refund of the amount together with interest at 12% per annum and costs which we feel moderate and reasonable. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact by the District Forum in that regard.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.

9.         In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.  

            PRESIDENT

MEMBER

Dt: 14.06.2010.

Vvr.