BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

F.A. 93/2009 against C.C. 451/2008, Dist. Forum-I, Visakapatnam.  

Between:

1) I. Chakravarthi, S/o. Narayana Murthy

Age: 59 years, R/o. Payakaraopeta

Visakapatnam Dist.

2)  I. Narayana Murthy, s/o. Chakravarthi

Age: 40 years, R/o. Payakaraopeta

Visakapatnam Dist.

3)  Anantha Lakshmi, W/o. Chakravarthi

Age: 40 years, R/o. Payakaraopeta

Visakapatnam Dist.                                     ***                           Appellants/

                                                                                                  Complainants.

                                                                   And

1)   M/s. G.P.R. Housing Pvt. Ltd.

Rep. by its Managing Director

Regd. Office :  6-21-17, 7/2

Arundelpet, Guntur.

2)  Project Manager

N. Sreenivasa Rao, GPA Holder

M/s. G.P.R. Housing Pvt. Ltd.

Housing Scheme, Daba Gardens

Saraswathi Park Junction

Visakapatnam.                                            ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops.  

Counsel for the  Appellant:                :         P.I.P.

Counsel for the Respondents:           :         M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

    &

                                 SMT. M. SHREESHA,  MEMBER.

MONDAY, THIS THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1)                This is an appeal preferred by the complainants dis-satisfied with the order of the Dist. Forum directing the respondents to refund the amount instead of directing them to execute sale deed. 

2)                The case of the  complainants in brief is that complainant Nos. 2 & 3  are son and wife of complainant No. 1 respectively.   They joined as members in the scheme floated by the respondents to sell house plots each consisting of 200 sq.yds for  Rs.  45,999/- payable in instalments.   They were allotted pass books.  While the first complainant  had paid Rs.  37,100/- , second complainant had paid Rs. 42,050/- and the  third complainant had paid Rs. 35,700 totalling to Rs. 1,14,850/-.  When they sought for registration of the plots  the respondents are delaying  on one pretext or   the other.  In the process they suffered mental agony.   Therefore they sought registration of plots  or in the alternative refund the said amount together with interest, compensation and costs.

3)                The respondents resisted the case.    It had admitted that it was doing real estate business, and   admitted that the complainant No. 1 joined the group for allotment  of house sites in  Dolphin Enclave at Bheemunipatnam.  However, it alleged that the Dist. Forum at Visakapatnam  had no jurisdiction since the payments were made at Hyderabad,   He paid Rs. 37,100/- as against  Rs. 53,000/-.  He was a defaulter and therefore not entitled to claim refund of the amount.   The second complainant  joined the group  for allotment of house site at Kanakadurga Nagar at Lankelapalem.  He paid  Rs. 40,350/- as against Rs. 46,000/-.  He was a defaulter and therefore not entitled to claim refund of the amount.  The third  complainant  had paid the amount for house site in  Gayatri Gardens at Hyderabad.  Since the records were at Hyderabad  they were unable to verify.    They had obtained lay out plan from  urban development authority.   It had developed the land by laying roads, drains and other infrastructure.    In fact the APTRANSCO also started laying  high tension lines.   It filed a suit against APTRANSO for changing route alignment  and in the process  there was delay in getting necessary permission from the urban development authority.    They have also provided  water facility.   Since they have invested huge amount, directing them to  refund of amount would put them into financial difficulties.    There was no deficiency in service  on their part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.  

4)                The complainants in proof of their case filed the affidavit evidence of first complainant and got Exs. A1 to A16  marked while the respondents did not file any documents. 

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the respondents having collected the amounts for allotment of plots  however as there was no lay out from the competent authority directed  refund   of  Rs. 1,14,850/- with interest  @ 12% p.a.,  from 1.1.2000 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-. 

6)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainants preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate  the facts in correct perspective.  It ought to have directed registration of plots as they are available.  The amounts granted under each of the heads is very meagre.  Therefore they prayed that in case of refund of  amount,  heavy compensation besides interest @ 18% be granted. 

7)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                It is an undisputed fact that the respondents floated different ventures for selling house plots  at various places viz.,  Bheemunipatnam,  Lankelapalem and Hyderabad.  While the complainant No. 1 paid Rs. 37,100/-  for allotment of plot at  Bheemunipatnam, complainant No. 2 paid Rs. 40,350/-  for allotment of plot at  Lankelapalem and the complainant No. 3 paid  Rs. 35,700/- for allotment of plot at Hyderabad evidenced under  three pass books marked as  Exs. A1.  On  repeated notices  by the complainants under Exs. A3, A4, A10 and  A15  addressed  Ex. A3 letter  Dt.  7.2.2002  to complainant No. 2 stating that  it would execute sale deed and that they would inform the amount to be paid towards registration charges etc.  The respondents  no doubt admitted the receipt of amount alleged by  the complainants, however, contended  that  in

view of the default committed by them,  they were not entitled to either refund of amount  or for registration of plots.   Except stating that  it had obtained permission it did not file  approved lay outs.   The fact remains that  the respondents did not allot plots or assigned plots to the complainants.   It is not even the case of the complainants  that a particular plot was allotted to them so that respondents could be directed  to execute sale deed for such a plot.    Except fleeting contention that some plots are available and  that the respondents be directed to execute the sale deed for the said plot, the complainants did not mention as to the particulars of the plots available in various ventures for which  they had paid the amounts.   This is all vague.  No relief for registration of plots could be ordered  when a particular  identified plot was not allotted to any of the complainants.   The Dist. Forum is justified  in ordering refund of the amount paid by each of the complainants with interest  @ 12% p.a.,   However, the complainants request that the interest be enhanced to 18% p.a.    The Supreme Court in   HUDA  Vs. Prem Kumar Agarwal reported in  I (2008) CPJ 42 (SC)  held that rate of interest has to be based on current rate.   The complainant is entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 18% p.a.  as held in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh , II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC).

9)                 The complainants were equally awarded  a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the complainants.   The complainants having subscribed to such a venture ought to have insisted in the first instance itself for allotment of  plot so that  the escalation of real estate prices  etc. and compensation  for  such escalation  need not be resorted to.    The complainants ought to  have filed market value certificate etc.   or sale deed of one of the plots in order to award reasonable compensation.   Without any evidence whatsoever compensation if any  awarded would be arbitrary.   After taking totality of the circumstances,   compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each was awarded which we feel reasonable.  

10)              The other contention was that  the Dist. Forum ought  to have awarded  the amount  for the expenses incurred by them for their visits to the branch office, registered office of the company number of times.    The complainants did not furnish  any proof that they had spent so much of amount in order to award costs.   At any rate an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded which we feel just and reasonable in view of the transaction involved in this case.    

11)               The Dist. Forum after considering the merits of the matter ordered refund of the amount.  The complainants should  blame  themselves for not getting the plots allotted at the time of entering into  the transaction and therefore this Commission cannot  direct the respondents to execute the sale deed for a particular plot, more so,  when there was no details as to the plots that are available for ordering execution of sale deeds.  There are no merits in the appeal.

12)              In the result the appeal is dismissed.  However, no costs. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

                                                                               Dt.  19. 04. 2010.  

“UP LOAD – O.K.”