FA.No.694/2010 against CC.No.107/2009 District Consumer Forum-II, Tirupathi.

Between:

Smt.Tiruvuru Subhashini,

W/o.T.Munaswamy,

R/at: TTD Plot No.48,

Srilakshmi Nagar, M.R.Palle,

Tirupati, Chittoor Dist.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.Sri M.Sudhakar,

   Managing Director,

   Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd.

   Chowdary Mansion, Ameerpet,

2.The Branch Manager,

   2^nd Floor, Balaji Complex, Prakasam Road,

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant           :  Mr.M.Ram Gopal Reddy.

Counsel for the Respondents     :  Admn.stage.

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

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

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

*******  

1.         Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the appeal can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2.         Appellant is the unsuccessful complainant.

            The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a plot for Rs.41  However, the registration of plot was not made in view of the fact that the opposite parties could not get approval from TUDA.  Therefore, she sought for refund of the amount together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of last payment i.e. 01.11.2000, besides compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

3.         The opposite parties resisted the matter.  They admitted the payments made by the complainant, however alleged that the complainant could not come forward for getting the registered sale deed executed in her favour despite several requests.  As there was no other way, they had registered the plot in the name of third party.  She was not entitled to the amount as the contract could not be   The complaint was also barred by limitation. 

4.         The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3.  The opposite parties except filing affidavit evidence of 2^nd opposite party did not file any documents.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that neither the amount was refunded by the opposite party, nor the plot was registered in the name of the complainant.  The complaint is not barred by limitation.  However, she having paid Rs.41,400/- directed the opposite parties to pay the said amount with interest at 9% per annum from 01.11.2000 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.1,500/-. 

6.         Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the complainant preferred this appeal.  She asserted that the present market value of the plot is Rs.2  So also contended that low rate of interest viz. at 9% per annum was granted. 

7.         The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for in the present appeal, and if so to what amount?

8.         It is an undisputed fact that on 20.08.1995 the opposite parties floated a venture wherein they agreed to sell plots for Rs.41  The complainant had paid Rs.41  When she gave notice requesting the opposite parties to execute the sale deed, the same was not complied and therefore, she filed the complaint.  The District Forum after considering the amount paid viz. Rs.41 

9.         Though a contention of limitation was taken by the opposite parties,   the last payment was made on 1.11.2000, and the complaint having been filed in the year 2009, it was held that it was not barred by limitation.  The opposite parties did not prefer any appeal and the reason that was assigned by the District Forum cannot be faulted at this juncture.  We are of the opinion that the District Forum was right in stating that it was not barred by limitation. 

10.       The complainant alleges that there was escalation of prices and the market value would be around Rs.2  Evidently, the allegation of the opposite parties that the plot was sold away to a third party was not denied by the complainant.  In the circumstances there is no other go than to order refund of the amount and the District Forum has rightly awarded interest at 9% per annum.  The compensation of Rs.10  It is moderate and reasonable.  Therefore, we do not see any merits in the appeal.

11.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.  No costs.            

PRESIDENT

MEMBER

DtVvr.