This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 31-01-12 in the presence of Sri P. Ramanjaneyulu, advocate for the complainant and of Smt B. Bindu, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite party to register the plot bearing No.69 in Sai Bhavani Group or refund the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- together with interest @24% p.a., from the date of joining till the date of realisation; Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and physical strain; Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and costs of the complaint.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The opposite party is dealing business in real estate.   The complainant joined as a member in Sai Bhavani Group for purchase of house plot.   The opposite party allotted plot No.69 to an extent of 209 sq. yards.   Total value of the plot was Rs.1,20,000/- spread over for a period of 40 months.  The complainant paid Rs.1,20,000/- in installments and those payments were entered by the opposite party in pass book No.321 issued to the complainant.   The complainant enquired about the development activities of Sai Bhavani Group plots and its approved lay out plan.   The opposite party and his people did not respond properly.   The opposite party failed to register the said plot in the name of the complainant though ready to pay the development charges and registration fee and other expenses if any, just and proper.   The opposite party failed to develop the said plots as per brochure and promises.   The opposite party also failed to inform the development charges.   Non registration of the said plot in the name of complainant and keeping the said group of plots undeveloped amounted to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.   On account of this the complainant suffered a lot financially and mentally.   The opposite party gave reply with false allegations to the notice issued by the complainant.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        The complainant joined in Sai Bhavani group as per clause 5 (c) of terms and conditions of the scheme to purchase a plot measuring 200 sq. yards only for Rs.1,20,000/- excluding development charges and registration expenses.  The complainant made his last payment on 06-10-04 though closing date of the said scheme was 13-07-04.    The complainant has to pay development charges and registration expenses as paid by other members of the said scheme.   The complainant kept quite till June, 2009 since 06-10-04 without responding to the representations of the opposite party.   In July, 2009 the complainant visited the office of the opposite party at Vijayawada, had chosen a suitable plot in the said scheme and promised to come with payment towards development charges and registration expenses.  The VGTM, UDA issued lay out bearing Nos. LPNo.3/08/VJA and L.P.No.4/08/VJA. In 2008 the VGTM, UDA had taken up developmental activity for which the opposite party faced extra burden in developing the site.    The norms of the UDA in 2004 are not that much of burden in developing the site.   The opposite party handed over the roads and open sites in LP No.3/2008/VJA to the Gram Panchayat, Rayanpadu through registered gift deeds bearing Nos.1848/09 (for open space) and 1849/09 for roads.   After satisfying the developmental activities made by the opposite party the VGTM, UDA cancelled the mortgage deeds and released the mortgage area to the opposite party vide regd. document No.1390/2009.   The opposite party also laid electrical poles with electrical lines, power supply and under ground drainage system.   The VGTM, UDA released lay out after satisfaction of developments made by the opposite party.   The members of the scheme are very much aware of the terms and conditions including the complainant.   The complainant kept quiet for the reasons best known to him from July, 2009 onwards inspite of reply from the opposite party.   The complainant became a defaulter in not paying the development charges and registration expenses.   The opposite party is not at fault and did not commit any deficiency of service.   The opposite party is always ready to provide the suitable or the plot chosen by the complainant in available plots of the said scheme subject to payment of development charges @Rs.600/- per sq. yard.   Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and are invented to suit his claim.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Exs.B-1 to B-17 on behalf of the complainant and opposite party were marked respectively.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

        1.   Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?

        2.   Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if                        so to what amount?

        3.   Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute?

         4.   To what relief?

6.  Admitted facts in this case are these:

1. The complainant joined as a member of the opposite party in Sai Bhavani Group and the opposite party issued pass book (Ex.A-1).
2. The opposite party in all paid.1,20,000/- from 19-06-01 to 05-10-04 (Ex.A-1).
3. The opposite party allotted plot No.69 and the same was mentioned in Ex.A-1 pass book.
4. There was exchange of notices between the complainant and opposite party (Exs.A-2 to A-4).
5. The complainant has not paid developmental charges to the opposite party. 

1. POINT No.3:-     Ex.B-1 is the xerox copy of the application of the complainant for house site.   In Ex.B-1 it was mentioned that the registered office of the opposite party was located at Guntur.   The property in question was located near Vijayawada.   In Ex.A-1 pass book it was mentioned that the Courts at Guntur shall have jurisdiction to try the disputes.   The opposite party was shown as resident of Vijayawada.   Since the head office of the opposite party was located at Guntur as mentioned in Ex.B-1 we are of the view of this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  We therefore answer this point in favour of complainant.

8.    POINT No.1:-  It is not the case of the complainant  that he is not aware of  the terms and conditions as mentioned in Ex.A-1. The terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A-1 are binding on both the complainant and the opposite party.

9.   In Ex.A-1 it was noted that the complaint was allotted plot No.69 measuring 209 sq. yards.   Clauses 4, 10, and 11 of Ex.A-1 are extracted below for better appreciation:

10.   The above clauses lead us to draw an inference that the initial allotment of the plot is only temporary and the extent of each plot is only 200 sq. yards. 

11.   The layout bearing Nos.LPA 3/2008 and 4/2008 were approved on 16-02-2008 by VGTM, UDA i.e., much later to the closure of the scheme by 13-07-2004.  Therefore, the contention of the complainant about no development taking place at the time of announcing the scheme is having considerable force.          

  12. As per Ex.A-1 the scheme was commenced on 12-03-2001 and was closed on 13-07-04.    Ex.A-1 did not disclose when they will get the lay out approved and when the development will be completed.   Exs.B-5 and B-6 revealed that the layout was approved on 16-02-08 much later to the date even by the closure of the scheme.   The opposite party ought to have anticipated the same much before announcing the scheme.   It can therefore be inferred that approval of lay out and development did not take place by the date when the subject scheme was announced and even by the date it was closed. 

13.   The above conduct of the opposite party in notifying the scheme without getting the plan approved and its attempt to sell plots without approved lay out by the concerned authority amounted to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.   We gain support for the above view from the Judgement reported in Kiran Real Estates and constructions, Sitammadhara, Visakhapatnam vs. Nagalla Anand Sai Sudhakar 1999 CPJ 476 where in it was it was held that the attempt of the appellant to sell plots without lay out approved by the VUDA amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.   In view of the aforementioned discussion, we answer this point against the opposite party. 

POINT No.2:-     The conduct of the opposite party can be gathered by the terms and conditions mentioned in the Ex.A-1.   The complainant claimed Rs.25,000/- as damages towards mental agony, pain and suffering.   The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party incurred lot of expenditure in protecting the plot of the complainant from being trespassed.  Nothing prevented the opposite party from intimating the complainant about the development charges to be paid soon after the lay out was being approved.  Even Ex.B-15 notice was also silent about the development charges to be levied.   That shows the attitude of the opposite party in collecting development charges from plot holders.   Under those circumstances awarding Rs.10,000/- towards damages in our considered opinion will meet ends of justice.   We therefore award Rs.10,000/- as damages and answer this point accordingly in favour of the complainant.

POINT No.4:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to intimate the development charges within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order in writing to the complainant.
2. On payment of development charges by the complainant within two weeks thereafter the opposite party is directed to register among the available plots in Sai Bhavani Scheme within two weeks.   The complainant shall bear the registration expenses at the time of registration.
3. In case the complainant is not willing to pay the development charges as claimed by it, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) together with interest @9% p.a., from             06-10-04 till payment. 
4. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards damages.
5. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenograpaher, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 6^th day of              February, 2012.

            MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:   

                                                                             PRESIDENT