This case coming on 27.06.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri C.V. Prasad, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri C.R. Vasantha Kumar, Sri Ch. Satyanarayana, Sri Paka Satyanarayana, Mrs. V. Chaitanya Latha, Ms. K. Eswaramma, Sri N. Venugopala Rao, Sri S. Srinivas & Sri Ch. Venkata Appa Rao, Advocates for the Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

                                                ORDER

(As per the Honourable Male Member on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass an award  in her favour and against the Opposite Party as follows:  a) to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.31,000/- (Rupees thirty one thousand only) together with interest @ 24% per annum from the respective dates of payment; b) to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical strain to the Complainant;  c) to pay costs of the complaint; and d) pass such other relief or reliefs as the Forum may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the complaint, is that the Opposite Party is doing Real Estate business in the name and style of M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., having its registered office at Guntur and also having branches all over Andhra Pradesh and having one of the branches at Visakhapatnam.   The Complainant stated that the Opposite Party advertised a scheme for allotment of house sites in the developed layout named as “Sai Vishnu Phase-II” situated at Kottavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District.    Believing the advertisements of the Opposite Party, the Complainant joined as a member in the above said scheme on 07.07.2002 by paying Rs.8,000/- towards 1^st installment for obtaining two house plots of an extent of 167 Sq. yards each.   The total cost of the plots is  Rs.1,33,600/-.   The Opposite Party issued two pass books in favour of the Complainant and the Opposite Party issued a cash receipts in favour of the Complainant for Rs.8,000/- each.   The Passbooks are issued by the Opposite Party and are bearing Nos.2521 & 2522.   Subsequently, the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.31,000/- (Rs.15,500/- +Rs.15,500/-).  Totally the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.31,000/-.  All the payments made by the Complainant were acknowledged by the Opposite Party in the passbooks issued by them.   The Complainant stated that subsequent to the above payments, the Complainant came to know that the Opposite Party had not developed the layout and had not taken any steps to obtain the layout plan from the VUDA Authorities.   As such, the Complainant questioned the Opposite Party for non-development of the layout for which the Opposite Party officials stated that the layout proceedings were pending before the concerned authority, they would obtain the same within short period and inform the Complainant.   They also further stated that the Complainant can pay the remaining amount at the time of registration.    The Complainant stated that thereafter the Opposite Party had not informed anything and when the Complainant approached them regarding the development of the layout, they have been postponing the same on some pretext or the other by saying something.    The Complainant approached several times and demanded either to register the developed plots in her name or to refund the amount with interest thereon, but in vain.  Hence, having no other go, except to approach this Forum, the Complainant is constrained to file the complaint for redressal.    The Complainant further stated that due to non-development of the layout and non refund of the amount, the Complainant suffered lot of mental agony and also physical strain in approaching the office of the Opposite Party.   Hence, the Complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.31,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum and Rs.10,000/- towards damages of inconvenience, mental agony, loss of valuable time and financial loss, which were caused to the Complainant purely on the account of deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.  Hence, this Complaint.

4.       The Complainant filed an affidavit and also written arguments to support her claim.   Exs. A1 to A8 are marked for the Complainant.

5.       On the other hand, the Opposite Party resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its written version, that the process of development and the method and procedure for obtaining the approval were clearly explained to the Complainant at the time of admission.   The general procedure involves mobilization of lands, entering into the agreements with respective land owners, conversion of land use, application for Block Layout Plan, development of the layout in accordance with the plan and release of layout plan etc.    The Opposite Party stated that there were many unanticipated hurdles, such as change of governments and its policies and change of rules and regulations and the Opposite Party initially fixed the price basing on the costs prevailing at the point of time for the requisite limited amenities, such as Water Bound Macadam Roads, open drains, Electricity provision to the layout that were necessary for obtaining the approval.   It is not out of place to mention that the statutory authorities used to develop the other amenities in the layout and used to collect the developmental charges from the owners of the plots at the time of applying for building plan approvals at that point of time.   The Opposite Party stated that the statutory authorities have imposed stricter conditions for release of the layout permissions and enhanced the charge/levies like land use conversion fees, layout development fee including enlargement of development norms/policies, other fees, levies, taxes, charges etc., and payment for such amounts was clearly agreed upon at the time of admission itself, where in it was clearly stated that the members will have to bear the rates ruling at the time of registration/final development of layout.   The Opposite Party stated that at the time of admission, the Opposite Party had issued the layout plan basing on the prevalent norms at that point of time, such as 33 feet road, laying Water Bound Macadam roads, open drains, Electricity provision to the layout but later, the statutory authorities foreseeing the developments insisted upon the increase of road width from 33 feet to 40 feet side roads, provision for commercial & community facilities and further enhanced the number of open areas and its extent.   The Opposite Party stated that the statutory authorities imposed a condition to lay the Black top roads and also increased the size and standards of the open drains, construction of ornamental compound wall for the open spaces, development of greenery in open spaces, provision of play equipments for children and benches which were hitherto were not essential or mandatory at the time of application for sanction of the layout approval.   All the area covered by the roads and open spaces has to be conveyed by way of registered gift to the Panchayat.    The Opposite Party further stated that due to the drastic changes made by the statutory authorities several objections were raised and the Opposite Party complied with each and every thing such as obtaining the GPA from all the land owners in favour of the Opposite Party, obtaining the conversion certificate from the concern R.D.O. and the Opposite Party also have to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.No.15249/09 where in W.P.M.P. No.20023/09 was filed for a direction against the statutory authorities and toiled day and night in order to keep up the obligations of the Opposite Party under the agreement.  The Opposite Party stated also that due to the changes in the rules from time to time, the plotted area were drastically reduced, besides the Opposite Party have to lose additional land for the commercial and community purposes, for provision of more open spaces and also towards the wider roads for 40 feet.   The Opposite Party stated that besides developing the layout as per the requirements of the statutory authorities, it has also complied with the high demand for processing and balance conversion charges i.e., a sum of Rs.2,79,800/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy nine thousand eight hundred only) paid on 19.06.2008 in addition to the amounts already paid to the statutory authorities besides undertaking to pay any such additional amount as and when the statutory authorities demand the same.   The Opposite Party stated that all the efforts and developments were made as per the requirements of the statutory authorities which in turn benefit the Complainant for effective use of the property and without which the value of the property would not have increased and the Complainant, knowing very well about the development of the layout as per the subsequent norms for grant of approval, is trying to avoid his part of contract even though he had specifically agreed for the same.   The Opposite Party further stated that after all the hard work over the period of time and having accomplished the job, the Opposite Party could get the layout approval L.P.No.2/2010, dated 07.01.2010.   The Opposite Party stated that the Complainant is at fault, as such, the Complainant cannot seek equity having failed on her part to fulfill terms of the agreement and on that score alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    The Complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount more so along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only).     On the other hand, the Complainant who has to compensate the Opposite Party for the losses occasioned to the Opposite Party on account of the breach of the terms and conditions by the Complainant.   The Opposite Party  contended that there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant in rendering service to the Complainant and the Complainant who failed to meet the extra charges, levies, fees and charges for the additional amenities made by the Opposite Party as per the norms of the statutory authorities, only with a view to avoid her contractual obligations, filed the false and frivolous complaint only with a view to avoid making payment of the amount as per the agreement.

6.       The Opposite Party filed an evidence affidavit to buttress its contention.    It was treated as no written arguments for the Opposite Party.       No documents are marked for the Opposite Party.

7.       The matter has been treated as heard on behalf of the Complainant.

          The matter has not been heard for the Opposite Party.

8.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Opposite Party issued passbook Nos.2521 and 2522 in the name of the Complainant.  And both the passbooks were issued for plots in “Sai Vishnu Phase-II”.   The first installment was paid @ Rs.8,000/- on 07.07.2002.   The scheme was for a period of 50 months.   As such, this scheme has to end by September, 2006 by which time the Opposite Party should be ready with all the legal requirements to register respective plots in the name of the Complainant.   But in its written version, the Opposite Party admitted that it could get the layout approval- L.P.No.2/2010, dated 07.01.2010-only in the year, 2010.   Thus, the Opposite Party failed to obtain the necessary L.P. by September, 2006 which was the end date of the “Sai Vishnu Phase-II” scheme of which the Complainant is a member.  So, it is as clear as daylight that the Opposite Party was not doing anything worthwhile after collecting installments from the scheme members like the Complainant.   When the Complainant sensed inactivity on the part of the Opposite Party, she promptly stopped paying installments.  The Opposite Party, by its own admission in its written version, was able to obtain the necessary L.P. only in the year, 2010.   So, within the stretch of the scheme period-from July,2002 to September, 2006- there was primafacie deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party as it was unable to obtain any L.P in that period.   Therefore, the Complainant, as a reasonable and prudent person stopped paying further installments because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party only.  As such, she is entitled to get refund of the amount paid by her to the Opposite Party, that too with interest from the date of payment of her last installment i.e, from 21.07.2003.   Moreover, as the Complainant should have faced much physical hardship and mental agony because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party, she is entitled to some compensation also.   As the Complainant is forced to  file this complaint because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party, she is entitled to costs of this complaint too.   

9.       In the result, this Forum directs the Opposite Party: 1) to refund Rs.31,000/- (Rupees thirty one thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 21.07.2003 till the date of actual realization, and to pay 2) a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and 3) Costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 14^th day of July, 2014.

Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

President                                                                            Male Member

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

For the Opposite Party:-

                                      -Nil-

Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

President                                                                            Male Member