Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/264/2012

Gopalam Sivaramakrishna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Krian Krishna Real Estate and Construction Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S. Sridhar

07 Nov 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:24-08-2012   

                                                                                                Date of Order:07-11-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                          Friday, the 7^th day of November, 2014.

                              CONSUMER CASE No.264/2012

Between:-

Sri Gopalam Sivaramakrishna, S/o Pedarayudu,

Hindu, aged about 56 years, represented by

S.P.A. holder Smt. Kodali Nagaraji, Hindu, aged

45 years, resident D.No.54-12-17/50, H.B. Colony,

Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                        ….. Complainant

And:-

M/s. Kiran Krishna Real Estate and Construction

Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director,

Vallabhaneni Krishna Prasad, having office at

T.P.T. Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                           …  Opposite Party

                     

This case coming on 01.10.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Sridhar, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

        (As per Smt. K. Saroja Honourable Lady Member on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant joined as a member in the name and style of SAGARIKANAGAR of the Opposite Party.   The Complainant attracted by the Opposite Party with a fond hope to acquire a house plot in the city and joined as a member by paying initial payment of Rs.3,600/-  on 01.09.1995 in the above said layout for purchase of an extent of 200 Sq. yards and both the parties entered into an agreement on 01.09.1995, the Opposite Party allotted a Code No.92165.   According to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Complainant has to pay the plot cost in 60 installments viz., Rs.3.600/- as initial amount and other installments shall be paid within 60 installments.   The Complainant paid initial amount of Rs.3,600/- on 01.09.1995 and other payments paid in different dates, all the payments are acknowledged by the Opposite Party,in total the Complainant paid Rs.23,600/- out of Rs.59,550/-.   Subsequently, the Complainant came to know that the Opposite Party did not develop the layout as promised and cheated many of its customers.    Then the Complainant stopped payment and requested the Opposite Party to return the amount as paid by him.   The Opposite Party agreed orally for the same, but did not return the amount till today.   Inspite of many requests made by the Complainant, the Opposite Party did not return the amount nor develop the said venture.    Hence, this Complaint.

 

2.       a) For recovery of a sum of Rs.23,600/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand and six hundred only) towards principal;

b) For recovery of a sum of Rs.79,296/- (Rupees Seventy nine thousand two hundred and ninety six only) towards interest;

c) For recovery of a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation;

d) For subsequent interest from the date of Complaint till the date of realization:

e) For costs of the Complaint; and

f) For such other relief or reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

 

3.       The Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter.   The Opposite Party stated that as per the conditions of the Sale Agreement, the customers are not entitled to refund the amount as paid by them.   But the Opposite Party returned the amount to the default customers on humanitarian grounds.    After knowing this a group of people including some of the staff members who left the Opposite Party long back collude each other fabricated the bills, letters and filed several Complaints.     The present complaint is also one of the same.   The Opposite Party denied the signature on the receipts belongs to the Opposite Party.   The Complainant is a defaulter.  So, they have no liability to pay any reliefs asked by the Complainant.

 

4.       At the time of enquiry, both the Opposite Parties filed their affidavits as well as written arguments to support their contentions.    Exs.A1 to A3 are marked for the Complainant.   No documents are marked for the Opposite Party.   Heard both sides.

 

5.       ExA1 is the Sale Agreement entered by both parties.   Ex.A2 is the (10) bunch of receipts issued by the Opposite Party.  Ex.A3 is the reference Code No.92165 of SAGARIKANAGAR issued by the Vice-President dated 20.06.22002.

 

6.       The fact shown from the document filed by the Complainant i.e., Ex.A2 reveals that the Complainant made payment towards part payment of Sale Agreement on respective dates from 1995 to 1977.

 

7.       The point that would arise for determination in the case is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  The Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

 

8.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant paid Rs.23,600/- to the Opposite Party for the said plot in the above venture.   The Opposite Party did not develop the venture, even after two years of the agreement.    Then the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to refund the amount as paid by him because the Opposite Party did not develop the venture.   It amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.   As such, the Complainants wish to have a plot is defeated by the acts of the Opposite Party.   Moreover, the Opposite Party did not file any piece of evidence to prove that they have got VUDA approval and other documents as they developed the said venture.   Hence, the Complainant is entitled to Rs.23,600/- with interest, some compensation and costs too.

 

9.       In the result, this Complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Party: 1) to refund an amount of Rs.23,600/- (Rupees twenty three thousand and six hundred only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 15.05.1997 till the date of actual realization, to pay b) a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and c) Costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant.   Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).   Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

         

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this 7^th day of November, 2014.

 

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                          Sd/-

President                            Male Member                        Lady Member

                                     

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	01.09.1995	Agreement of Sale Deed between Complainant and OP	Original
Ex.A02	01.09.1995 to 15.05.97	Bunch of Receipts issued by OP	Original
Ex.A03	20.06.2002	Letter addressed by the OP	Original

 

For the Opposite Party:-

                                                                                     

                                                -Nil-                                                                     

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                          Sd/-

President                       Male Member                                               Lady Member