A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
FA 1703/2008 against C.C.No.1077/2007 on the file of the District Forum III, Hyderabad.
Between:
1. M/s. Narne Estates Pvt Ltd.,
No.1, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad – 500 009,
Represented by its chairman & Managing Director,
Col.N.Ranga Rao, S/o. Late N.V.Naidu,
Aged about : 63 years.
2. Medhasant Estates (P)., Ltd., 1. Gunrock Enclave,
Kharkhana, Secunderabad – 500 009, rep by its CMD,
Col. (Retd.) Narne Ranga Rao.
3. Col.N.Ranga Rao, S/o. Late N.V.Naidu,
Aged 63 years, Gunrock Enclave,
Kharkhana, Secunderabad.
4. CMD, Narne Esates Pvt.,Ltd., R/o.86,
Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad. … Appellants/Opp.Parties
And
Mr.E.V.B.V.Satyanarayana,
S/o. Not Known,
R/o. Flat No. 303, Asish Enclave, Street No.1,
Kimiti Colony, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. … Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K.B.Ramanna Dora
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission Stage
Coram : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
AND
SMT. M.SHREESHA, Hon’ble Member
MONDAY, THIS TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)
* * *
Having heard the learned counsel and perused the record we are of the opinion that the matter shall be disposed of on merits.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 13,500/- with interest at 9% together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- they preferred this appeal.
The case of the complaint is that he entered into agreement of purchase of open plot admeasuring an extent of 250 sq. yards situated at Bhuvangir village in Bhuvangir Mandal and paid entire amount. On 10.3.2007 the opposite parties demanded Rs.43,750/- which includes development charges and registration charges on which paid the said amount by way of cheque dt 14.3.2007. Accordingly thus executed the sale deed on 4.8.2007 in his favour. Later he came to know that the opposite parties have defrayed an amount of Rs.11,500/- and not Rs.25,000/- as represented by them. On that he issued notice dt 20.08.2007 to the opp.parties under ex. A3 demanding refund of balance of Rs.13,500/- paid by him for which no reply was given. Therefore he filed compliant claiming Rs.13,500/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 14.3.2007 till the amount is realized, and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and to pay costs of the complaint.
The opposite parties resisted the case sating that they have given account to show that they had spent and amount of Rs.25,000/- towards registration and other charges and the complainant kept quiet without making any protest and only after executing the sale deed he filed the complaint in order to blackmail them. Therefore they prayed for dismissal or the complaint.
The complainant in proof of his case filed evidence affidavit and documents Exs. A1 to A4. The opp.parties did not file any documents except affidavit evidence.
The District Forum opined that an excess amount of Rs.13,500/- was collected from the complainant by the opposite parties and therefore the opposite parties were liable to refund the said amount with interest, compensation and costs.
Aggrieved by the said decision the appellants/opposite parties preferred this appeal contending that they did not collect any excess amount from the complainant and they have given account as to how they spent the amount collected from him and prayed that appeal be allowed and the complaint be dismissed.
It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased a plot admeasuring an extent of 250 sq.yards from the opp.parties under registered sale deed dt. 4.8.2007. It is also not in dispute that when the opposite parties by their letter dt. 10.3.2007 directed the complainant to pay Rs.43,750/- namely an amount of Rs.18,750/- towards development charges. And Rs.25,000/- towards registration charges, accordingly he paid the said amount through cheque dt 14.3.2007. The case of the complainant is that while calculating the amount he noticed that the opp.parties did not spend Rs.25,000/- as alleged by them, but only spent Rs.11,500/- towards registration and other expenses and therefore an excess amount of Rs.13,500/- was collected from him.
The appellants alleged that they have spent Rs.8,900/- towards stamp duty, Rs.600/- towards registration fee, Rs.1000/- towards survey charges Rs.1000/- towards documentation charges, Rs.500/- towards clerical and typing charges, Rs.4,000/- towards legal fee, Rs.2,000/- towards architects fee, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.2,000/- towards incidental charges, totaling to Rs.25,000/- The District Forum after considering reasonability of payment of amounts included by way of legal fee, transportation charges and incidental charges etc., for which no evidence what so ever was filed disallowed the amounts. The appellants could not show as to why these amounts were included towards the consideration amount of the plot. There is no meaning in claiming amounts by mentioning incidental charges, transportation charges etc for which the complainant could not be directed to pay. Considering the nature of the expenditure mentioned by the appellants, we are of the opinion that the appellants were not entitled to those amounts from the complainant. Under the guise of charges they cannot collect amount beyond legally permissible amounts. The District Forum was correct instating that an amount of Rs.13,500/- was collected in excess and accordingly directed the opposite parties to pay the same. We do not see any merits in the claim made by the appellants. There are no merits in the appeal.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. Order of the District Forum is confirmed.
PRESIDENT
LADY MEMBER
DATED: 29.12.2008
* PM
