BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.256/2009 AGAINST C.D.No.686/2006 DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between:
Anji Babu
Executive Director, Sreemitra Townships
Pvt. Ltd., 302, 3rd floor, Krishna Plaza,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad-04 Appellant/
Opposite party
A N D
1. G.Harisurya Prakasa Rao,
R/o.H.No.3-3-108/24, New Friends
Colony Phase-II, Beside Janapriya
Apartments, Hyderguda, Attapur,
Hyderabad-48.
2. B.V.M.Purna Singh,
H.No.3-3-108/53, New Friends Colony
Phase-II, Beside Janapriya Apartments,
Hyderguda, Attapur, Hyderabad-48. Respondents/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant:Sri P.Narasima Rao.
Counsel for the Respondent:-Respondents appeared in person.
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER,
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order( Per Smt.M.Shreesha,Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.686/2008 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants 1 and 2 paid an amount of Rs.6,49,400/- towards the purchase of two plots comprising of 200 sq. yds. each to the opposite party in Putrajaya Heights project vide pass book Nos.2276 and 2277 respectively and were allotted plot No.303. The complainants submit that the opposite party assured them that there would be a 10% discount on the outstanding amount to be paid, immediate plot registration in the month of April, 2008, a plot would be reallocated very near to the main road and there will be a concession in the registration charges. On 19-7-2008 the complainants went to the site to ascertain the correct situation of the land and find that there was no such layout and it will take another three years to get a reasonable picture. They could not even locate plot No.303 physically on the layout. They submit that they met the Legal Estate Officer one Mr.Anji Babu and proposed that he consider their demand for refund of the money but he asked to wait for some more months to get the registration done as and when the technical and statutory problems are resolved. Later the complainants were informed that the opposite party sold the plot in ‘Putrajaya Heights’ at Rs.2600/- per sq. yd. with passbook numbers starting from 2550. Vexed with their attitude, they filed the complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the full amount paid together with
<!--[if !supportLists]-->i) <!--[endif]-->Mental agony cost for the past 6 months Rs.100000 (2 persons)
<!--[if !supportLists]-->ii) <!--[endif]-->Cost towards numerous phone calls they have made till date -Rs.600
<!--[if !supportLists]-->iii) <!--[endif]-->Cost towards travelling expenses to visit opposite party from April, 2008 to 31st August 2008, Auto fare @ 600 per visit x 10 visits =Rs.6000/-.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->iv) <!--[endif]-->Cost towards spending our personal time, setting aside our personal priorities Rs.50,000 ( for two persons)
<!--[if !supportLists]-->v) <!--[endif]-->Cost towards time spent on travelling to visit opposite party’s office 3hrs//visit x 500 (cost/hr) =15000.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->vi) <!--[endif]-->Cost towards effort on writing letters and follow up with opposite party’s office 24 hrs x 500 (cost/hr) =Rs.12,000.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->vii) <!--[endif]-->Cost towards travelling expenses and time spent to attend the consumer court hearing starting from 1st September, 2008 to till the case is resolved= Rs.8400/-
Autofare @ Rs.600 per visit x 4 visits = Rs.2,000/-
3hrs/visit x 500 (cost/hr) x4 (total visits till date Rs.6000/-.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->viii) <!--[endif]-->Consumer Forum court expenses going to be incurred from 1st
September, 2008 till the case is resolved –Rs.1000/-, Rs.500/-
for DD, DTP and Xerox charges-Rs.500/-.
Opposite party filed counter admitting that Plot No.303 jointly
comprising of 400 sq. yds. under pass book Nos.2276 and 2277 was allotted to complainants 1 and 2 and the complainants also paid the plot cost amount i.e. Rs.3,24,661 and 3,24,700/- totalling to Rs.6,49,361/-. The complainants also accepted the discounts given of Rs.15,300/- under pass book No.2276 and Rs.14,450/- under passbook No.2277. The complainants paid the entire amount by April, 2008 and the company got approval of the layout after a couple of months. The complainants filed the case in the month of August, 2008 and their company Legal Estate Officer on 12 August 2008 expressed that there was delay of getting DTPC approval, as the complainants paid the balance sale consideration much earlier to the scheme of 36 months. Accordingly the company got the said approval in the month of August, 2008 and the complainants without listening to the communication filed this complaint one month before instead of submitting the necessary requite forms for registration. The said plot No.303 was renumbered as 352 without any location change in geographical manner and the opposite party submitted that they are ready and willing to register the plot in favour of the complainants by providing DTCP lay out and it is unjust on the part of the complainants to demand refund of the money.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 and B1 to B11 allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund the total sale consideration of Rs.6,49,400/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the respective dates of payment till realization to complainants 1 and 2 together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainants 1 and 2 paid an amount of Rs.6,49,400/- towards full consideration and were allotted plot No.303 in Putrajaya Heights comprising of 200 sq. yds. each during March, 2008. It is the complainants’ case that when they visited the site, they could not even locate plot No.303 physically on the layout. The opposite party did not even get the required approval of the layout though they paid the entire amount in March, 2008 and till August, 2008 no registration had taken place and hence they lost confidence in the project of the opposite party and sought refund of the amount paid by them. It is the opposite party’s case that the approval of DTCP was got only in August, 2008 and the complainants were addressed a letter dated 12-8-2008 by their Legal Estate Officer requesting the complainants to wait for a month for registering the plot. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted in his grounds that the total period of the scheme is 36 months and the complainants joined the scheme on 29-9-2006 and paid under instalments till 31-3-2008 and were given discounts of Rs.15,300/- and Rs.14,450/- respectively. The learned counsel also drew our attention to Ex.B11 which is DTCP approval of the lay out and also Ex.B2 which is the unregistered sale deed dated 23-9-2008. It is the case of the opposite party that the complainants themselves did not co-operative for registration of the said plot and did not submit Form32 A together with photo and thumb impression and identity proof and that there are ready and willing to register the plot and the District Forum erred in awarding refund of the amount of Rs.6,49,400/-.
The respondents, party in persons filed their written arguments stating that they have completely lost confidence in this venture and they have paid the entire amount in the month of March, 2008 itself and the opposite party had got the approval only after they filed the case in the Forum on 10-9-2008. We observe from the record that it is an admitted fact that the complainants paid the entire amounts in the month of March, 2008 and it is also not in dispute that the opposite party has assured them that the land would be registered in April, 2008 as stated in the counter. The complainants have waited from April till September, 2008 and filed the case on 10-9-2008. It was only on 12-8-2008 that the appellant had written to the complainants stating that approval will take some time. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant did not send any written communication to the complainants that they got D.T.C.P. approval to the site till 10-9-2008. The appellant not having shown the D.T.C.P. approval to the complainants from April, 2008 to September, 2008 cannot now come forward to do the registration and it does not lie in his mouth to state that they were ready and willing to register when they were silent from April, 2008 till September 2008 and came forward with this plea only after the complainants approached the District Forum and filed the complaint on 10-9-2008. In the absence of any notice issued by the appellant/opposite party to the complainants between April, 2008 to September, 2008 that they were getting D.T.C.P. approval and that the complainant should come forward with identity proofs for registration, the contention of the complainants that they have lost confidence in the venture is justified and therefore their plea for refund of the money paid is sustainable. Hence we do not see any grounds to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/
MEMBER.
Sd/-
MEMBER.
JM 20-10-2009
