BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
C.C. No. 41/2009
Between:
Jagan Mohan Ponguvala, S/o. P. Venkata Ratnam
Age: 49 years, Service, R/o. Chicago, USA
Rep. by GPA Holder K. V. Rama Gopal,
S/o. Late K. V. Ramanaiah
Age: 55 years, R/o. Plot No. 45,
Seven Hills Colony,
Mansoorabad, L.B. Nagar
Ranga Reddy Dist. *** Complainant
And
M/s. Countryside Realtors (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Office at 103, Sirisampadha Apartments
Kour Hills, Phase-I, Madhapur
Hyderabad-500 081
Rep. by its First Directors
Mr. K. N. Simha, & Mr. Masood. *** Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Complainant: M/s. P. Shiv Kumar.
Counsel for the O.P: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THIS THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) This complaint is filed against opposite party realtor, for refund of advance/earnest money of Rs. 22,50,000/- together with interest, damages and costs.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite party a realtor promised to develop Ac. 19.09 guntas in survey No. 98 & 99 situated at Mokila village in Shankerpally mandal of Ranga Reddy district into a residential colony in the name and style of “The Lake Side”. He agreed to purchase plot No. 18 & 19 of 500 sq.yds each total admeasuring 1000 sq.yds at Rs. 4,500/- per sq. yd under agreement of sale Dt. 23.1.2007. He had paid Rs. 22, 50,000/- towards advance. The agreement specifically mentions that they have been obtaining requisite permission from the Gramapanchayat, Director, Town & Country Planning, A.P. Transco, Mandal Revenue Office etc. to develop into residential lay out besides various development facilities and amenities in the lay out as per specifications of Town and Country Planning. Despite 30 months have been elapsed no considerable progress has been shown in developing the site. Since the opposite party was not fulfilling the terms of contract, he issued notice on 25.8.2008 by registered post and that opposite party having acknowledged did not give reply. So also a reminder on 13.9.2008, though received it did not respond. Therefore, finally he gave another notice dt. 15.4.2009 for refund of the amount for which also the opposite party did not respond. Therefore, he filed the complaint for refund of Rs. 22, 50,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of receipt till the date of realization together with damages of Rs. 20 lakhs and costs.
3) Opposite party did not choose to contest despite the notice being published in Eenadu a daily as the notice of opposite party returned with endorsement ‘Left’. Since it is last known address we deem it that notice held sufficient.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A13 marked. The complainant swore on oath reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint. They are uncontroverted.
5) Admittedly Ex. A2 an agreement for purchase of house plot Nos. 18 & 19 of 500 sq.yds each in at Mokila village in Shankerpally mandal of Ranga Reddy district were agreed to be sold at Rs. 4,500/- per sq.yd under agreement of sale Dt. 23.1.2007. An amount of Rs. 22, 50,000/-was received by the opposite party. Despite the fact that 30 months have been elapsed and the complainant repeatedly by legal notices Exs. A3, A6, A9 were sent it did not choose to give reply and having received the notices evidenced under acknowledgements Exs. A5, A8. The opposite party did not choose to
controvert. It is evident from the conduct of opposite party having executed agreement Ex. A2 it intends to wriggle out and deny even the payment of the amount of Rs. 22, 50,000/-. For all these years it has utilised the amount. However, it did not choose either to develop the residential plots or execute the sale deed. The silence on the part of the opposite party despite receiving notices would undoubtedly show that it wanted to wriggle out all the benefits conferred under Ex. A2 agreement. All through the opposite party had the advantage of the amount. It is common knowledge that that there is hike in prices of real estate. It had collected the amount, however did not fulfil its part of contract. Since the complainant could prove latches on the part of opposite party, it is a fit case where the complainant should not only be entitled to refund of the amount paid towards advance but also interest and damages. The complainant all through suffered mental agony. Considering the amount involved, we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 1 lakh could be directed to be paid towards compensation.
6) In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 22, 50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of first notice Dt. 25.8.2008 till the date of realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs. 1 lakh towards damages and costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
COMPLAINANT: OPPOSITE PARTY
None None.
Documents marked for complainant:
Ex.A-1 3.07.2009 Copy of GPA
Ex.A-2 23.01.2007 Copy of agreement.
Ex.A-3 25.08.2008 Copy of legal notice
Ex.A-4 26.08.2008 Regd. Post receipt
Ex.A-5 28.08.2008 Postal Ack. Card.
Ex.A-6 13.09.2008 O/c. of legal notice.
Ex.A-7 16.09.2008 Regd. Post receipt
Ex.A-8 18.09.2008 Postal Ack. Card.
Ex.A-9 15.04.2009 O/c. of legal notice
Ex.A10 17.04.2009 Regd. Post receipt
Ex.A11 17.04.2009 Original receipt of UCP
Ex.A12 23.04.2009 Returned cover
Ex.A13 - Draft plan given by the opposite party.
Documents marked for Opposite Party : Nil
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 15.4.2010.
“ UP LOAD – O.K.”
