FA.No.1361/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.1/2006  DISTRICT FORUM, SRIKAKULAM.

Between:

Tangudu Lakshmana Murthy,

S/o.late Sambamurthy,

C/o.M/s.Estate India Commercial Company Ltd.,

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District.                                                                          Appellant/

                                                                                                                                       Complainant

                   And

Kiran Krishna Real Estates & Constructions

Rep. by its Managing Partner, V.Krishna

Prasad, S/o.Pedaiah, 50-40, 13/A,

T.P.T.Colony, Seethammadhara,

Visakhapatnam-530 013.                                                                                            Respondent/                                                                                                                                                                           Opp.party

Counsel for the Appellant:M/s.Aravala Rama Rao

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao.

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

SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

&

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER

.

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***

        Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.1/2006 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam, the complainant preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant joined as a subscriber in the Real Estate scheme of the opposite party in Priyadarshini Nagar Group and paid an amount of Rs.1,015/- at the first instance towards 200 sq. yds. site.  As per the terms of the scheme, every member has to pay Rs.265/- per month and the agent of the opposite party collected the amounts from the complainant in Amadalavalasa from time to time.  It is the case of the complainant that opposite party after collecting 43 instalments failed to collect the balance monthly instalments.  The complainant, after waiting for some time approached the opposite party and they informed hin that the scheme was discontinued and hence they have stopped the collection of the amount and stated that it is possible that another layout will be allotted and then the remaining seven instalments will be collected.  The complainant submitted that he waited with a hope that the opposite party will collect the balance seven instalments and the opposite party will allot a plot in Priyadarshini but the opposite party failed to do so and on the other hand issued letters from time to time stating that they will register the plot in favour of the complainant after approval of the VUDA and after providing all internal roads and drainages.  The opposite party finally issued a letter to the complainant in February, 2001 with an undertaking that they will register the plot in favour of the complainant and requested the complainant to deposit the registration charges.  Immediately, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to receive the registration charges and register the plot but the staff of the opposite party refused to receive the said amount and stated that they will inform the complainant at a later date.  Hence the complainant got issued a legal notice on 15-11-2001 calling upon them to repay the amount collected together with interest or in the alternative to register the plot on receiving the balance amount for which the opposite party sent a reply stating that the complainant is a defaulter and refused to receive the balance amount and stated that the amount of the complainant will be paid after December 2003 with interest.  The complainant submitted that he waited with a fond hope that the opposite party will repay his amount of Rs.12,145/- together with interest and as the amount was not paid, he approached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite party to register the plot by receiving seven instalments or in the alternative pay Rs.12,145/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 22-7-1999 till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

        Opposite party filed counter stating that it has been carrying on business under the name and style of M/s.Kiran Krishna Real Estates & Constructions Private Limited with an intention and objective  to provide house sites at lower prices in easy monthly instalments to the prominent customers who are ready and willing to discharge the entire sale consideration within the stipulated period of agreement.  They submitted they invested enormous amounts in acquiring the land and providing amenities and the complainant approached them for acquiring a plot and himself failed to perform his part of contractual obligations and became a defaulter and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. They further submitted that the claim of the complainant is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

        Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint does not fall against the opposite party but it falls against Kiran Real Estates & Constructions, Visakhapatnam.

        Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

        It is the case of the complainant that he deposited different sums on different dates with the opposite party for a house site in the lay out floated by the opposite party and made payments by way of instalments at the rate of Rs.265/- per month and in all paid Rs.12,145/-.  The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that their prayer before the District Forum was to receive the seven balance instalments and allot a house site or in the alternative direct the opposite party to refund Rs.12,145/- together with interest, compensation and costs.  It is the case of the respondent/opposite party that the complainant himself stopped payment of the instalments in the middle of the venture and that this opposite party is not responsible for any deficiency in service and that the receipts Exs.A1 and A2 were issued by the Managing Partner of ‘Kiran Real Estates and Constructions’, Visakhapatnam and have nothing to do with the opposite party herein who is arrayed as ‘Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions.  It is the case of the respondent/opposite party that their reply notice dated 05-12-2001 also shows that the complainant is at default and hence not entitled to any relief.  While we observe from the record, that Exs.A1 and A2, are receipts issued by Kiran Real Estates and Constructions signed by Mr.V.K.Prasad who is also representing the opposite