F.A.No.53/2008 AGAINST C.C.No.642/2007, DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD.

Between:

Mr.J.Satya Prasad, S/o.Gangadhara Rao,

Aged about 34 years, Occ:Pvt. Job

R/o.H.No.6-128, Sudershanreddy Nagar Colony

Chintal, Quthbullapur Mplty.,

R.R.District, A.P.-054.                                                                                                  Appellant/

                                                                                                                                      Complainant

          And

The Jana Chaithanya Housing (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Hyderabad-III, Off:At Flat Nos.314 and 315,

III rd floor, Taramandal Complex,

Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 004.                                                                                    Respondent/

                                                                                                                                      Opp.party.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.K.Visweswara Rao

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.M.Srinivas Swaroop

QUORUM:   SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

AND

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

                                                                             TWO THOUSAND TEN

  (Typed to the dictation of  Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***

        Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.642/2007 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the complainant  preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, J.Satya Prasad, joined as a Member of the housing venture of Sai Leela promoted by The Jana Chaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd., vide pass book No.46 and paid the entire instalments of Rs.30,000/- by 29-10-2000.  The complainant submitted that due to some financial crises, he could not pay the registration charges and approached the opposite party and after a lapse of time, he sent several representations to the opposite party to register the plot and also got issued a legal notice on 20-7-2006 for which he received a reply notice dated 28-10-2006 stating that the complainant failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the said scheme and offered to repay the amount paid by the complainant, which he alleges as deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to hand over the physical possession of the plot and award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and costs.

        Opposite party filed written version and admitted that the complainant joined as  a Member on 23-7-1997 and was given pass book No.46 after the initial payment of Rs.5,000/-.  Opposite party admitted that on 29-10-2000, the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- and submitted that the venture was completed in the year 2000 and the plots were registered and physical possession was also handed over to members who have completed the payments.  Opposite party submitted that it issued a final notice dated 29-6-2005 to the complainant to pay the balance amount and register the plot immediately on or before 30-7-2005 and the complainant failed to respond and remained silent.  Opposite party further submitted that it received a legal notice on 28-7-2006 from the complainant and immediately they have a reply on 28-10-2006 that there was no plot available in the said venture and that they had cancelled the plot which they have allotted earlier and denied any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

        Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A6, B1 to B5 and written arguments filed by both parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.30,000/- paid by the complainant along with interest at 10% p.a. from 30-10-2000 until the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.20,000/-

        Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

        It is the complainant’s case that he paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- to the opposite party in 16 instalments for a plot of 240 sq. yds. The complainant submits that the scheme is for 40 instalments but he chose to pay in a lumpsum manner and he paid the entire amount before 29-10-2000.  Ex.A2 are the receipts issued between 28-8-1997 to 29-10-2000.  We observe from the record that on 29-6-2005 vide Ex.B1, the opposite party first took initiative and got issued a notice to the complainant i.e. 5 years after the completion of the instalments requesting the complainant to register his plot on or before 30-7-2005.   The complainant submits that his wife had a medical problem in the year 2004 and filed Ex.A3 to establish the same.  Even this is 4 years after the completion of payment of the instalments.   Ex.B1 is an opportunity given to the complainant to pay the registration charges and get his plot registered.  The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that since there was no response from the complainant all the plots were sold and there are no plots available today for registration.  It is pertinent to note that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the contention of the complainant that he approached the opposite party in the year 2004.  Taking into consideration that the complainant did not approach the opposite party for a period of 5 years till the opposite party itself got issued a notice on 30-7-2005 vide Ex.B1 giving the complainant a final opportunity to pay the registration charges and get the plot registered and the complainant did not avail this opportunity, we are of the considered view that the District Forum in directing the opposite party to refund the amounts paid together with interest is justified.  Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.

        In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

                                                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER.

Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                             Dt.28-9-2010