BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD.

F.A.No.1713/2008 againstHYDERABAD

Between:

M.R.Rajesh, aged about 47 years,

S/o.Ramaiah, Q.No.A-277,

BDLTownship,

Bhanur-Post, Medak District 502 305.                                        

And

1. 

    Annapurna            

    Hyderabad.                                         2. C.Kodanda Rami Reddy, aged about

   BDLTownship,

3. K.Ramanand, aged about 38 years,

   BDLTownship,

4. V.Mohan Naik, aged 36 years,

   BDLTownship,

(Respondents 2 to 4 are not necessary parties)

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. M.Venkataramana Reddy.

Counsel for the Respondent: Notice against respondent held sufficient.

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

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO,.

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

Oral order:(Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)
***    

The case of the complainant in brief is that complainants 1, 3 and  no developmental activities took place and after a several complaints, the opposite   Sale  Therefore, they filed the complaint requesting for return of registered sale deeds along with link documents and for return of excess amounts paid towards development charges together with interest @ 12% p.a., and pay Rs.15,000/- to each complainant towards mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- for transportation charges in all Rs.1,92,360/-.

The opposite party resisted the case.  The complainants have to borne out the cost and expenses.  The complainants had to pay the balance of sale consideration in instalments on 7^th        Therefore, it prayed for dismissal f the complaint with costs.

The complainants in proof of their case filed affidavit evidence of first complainant and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 while the opposite party filed affidavit evidence of its Vice Chairman and filed Exs.B1 to B9.

The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record among other things opined that the complainant No.4 had to pay Rs.88,000/- towards balance to get the original sale deed along with necessary link documents from the opposite party  and therefore directed him to pay the same.  

Aggrieved by the said order, complainant No.4 preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.   

The respondent for reasons best known did not choose to contest the case.

During hearing of the appeal, the appellant had filed an application to receive additional evidence, namely photo copies of pass book, Ex.A10 and receipts as Ex.A11. 

The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by any mis-appreciation of fact or law in that regard?

It is undisputed fact that so far as the appellant/complainant No.4 is concerned, he had agreed to purchase 220 sq. yds. of site at Rs.1300 per sq. yd. + Rs.200/- per sq. yd. towards development charges.            

In the result this appeal is allowed in part    

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

Sd/-MEMBER.

Sd/-MEMBER.

JM