Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

cc/354/2012

Nalla Maha Laxmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Krishna Phani Constructions - Opp.Party(s)

B. Srinivasa Rao

05 Nov 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:29-10-2012

                                                                                                Date of Order:05-11-2014

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

 

                          Wednesday, the 5^th day of November, 2014.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.354/2012

Between:-

Smt. Nalla Maha Laxmi, W/o N. Rama Rao

Hindu, aged 52 years, R/o D.No.38-31-1/7,

Green Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-18.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.M/s. Krishna Phani Constructions, represented

   by its Managing Partner, Sri Mupparthi Lakshmi

   Babu, S/o late Venkata Satyam, Hindu, aged 50

   years, R/o Flat No.201, Amma Apartment,  Opp:

   Gayatri School, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam-7.

2.Sri. Mupparthi Lakshmi Babu, S/o late Venkata

    Satyam, Hindu, aged 50 years, Managing Partner,

    R/o Flat No.201, Amma Apartment, Opp: Gayatri

    School, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam-7.

                                                                               …  Opposite Parties     

                     

          This case coming on 09.10.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri M. Ravi, Advocate for the Opposite Parties1 and 2 and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed against the Opposite Parties by the Complainant asking them to pay his advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with interest @ 24% p.a. from 18.11.2010 to till the date of actual realization, and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  (Rupees One lakh only) and costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).

 

 2.      The case of the Complainant in brief is that the 1^st Opposite Party is M/s. Krishna Phani Constructions represented by its Managing Partner of the 2^nd Opposite Party have obtained plan approval for construction of Residential Apartment in the schedule site in the name and style of Srinivasa Residency and they intended sell the Flat No.501 in 4^th floor for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- and the Complainant had accepted the said offer and paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance amount on 18.11.2010 and both of them entered into the agreement to sell on the same day and as per the Clause No.5 of the said agreement, the Opposite Parties have to complete the same within 18 months from the date of registration with a grace period of 3 months.   But inspite of ready and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration amount, the Opposite Parties did not even start the construction work hence the non-constructing of the same can be treated as deficiency in service which resulted him mental agony and pain, and that he got issued a legal notice which was returned.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

3.       The Opposite Parties for the reasons best known to them did not resist the claim of the Complainant, though they have put up their appearance in beginning.

 

4.       To prove the case of the Complainant, he filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.   On the other hand, no documents were marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

 

5.       The Complainant filed written arguments.

 

6.       Heard.

 

7.       Now the points that arise for determination is:

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs of advance amount with interest, compensation and costs.

 

8.       In order to substantiate the case of the Complainant, he filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the averments of the complaint which clearly and categorically goes to shows that the Opposite Parties acquired property and development agreement dated 21.05.2009 and interested to construct a Residential Apartment in the name and style of SRINIVASA RESIDENCY and obtained approval plan dated 30.09.2009 and there- after they intended for proposed constructing flat No.501 in the 5^th floor for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- and the Complainant herein accepted the said offer and paid sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance amount on 18.11.2010 and both parties have acknowledged the same, after entered into the agreement to sell on the same day etc.  The evidence of PW-1 is corroborated with Ex.A1 agreement to sell entered into between both parties dated 18.11.2010.   Ex.A2 legal notice got issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties clearly shows the Opposite Parties failed to comply with the terms and conditions of Ex.A1.      Of course, it was returned.   This evidence of PW-1 is unchallenged.   On a careful perusal of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A1 and Ex.A2, we are of the considered view that the complaint is a consumer; having received the advance amount from him by the Opposite Parties they did not render proper service and failed to comply the term under Ex.A1.    Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for an advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest from 18.112010.

 

9.       Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stages of our discussion what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled.   The rate of interest claimed by the Complainant is 24% p.a.   This rate of interest claimed by the Complainant appears to be excessive, of course, it is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A1 is commercial in nature; but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is a licenced to claim interest @ 24% p.a. on Ex.A1.    But at the same time, it is imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 12% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix at rate in question @ 12% p.a. on Ex.a1 in question.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

 

10.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be considered.    At appears as seen from the evidence of PW-1 that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Parties and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss.   It is an un-dispute fact that the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.   Naturally that made have put the Complainant to suffer same mental agony besides physical stress and strain.    In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of Rs.25,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We, therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.25,000 /-, in the circumstances of the case on hand.  Accordingly this point is answered.

 

11.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for refund of the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- or reliefs sought for, have been honored by the Opposite Parties, within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for claims for cost deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.  Accordingly costs are awarded.

 

12.     In the result, Complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite Parties: a) to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from 18.11.2010 to till the date of realization, and to pay b) a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and c) Costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the Complainant.   Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only).   Time for compliance, one month.

 

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 5^th day of November, 2014.

 

Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

Male Member                                                                         President

 

 

 

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCEs

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A1	18.11.2010	Agreement to Sell	Original.
Ex.A2	04.10.2012	Legal Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to the 1st OP.	Office copy
Ex.A3	05.10.2012	Postal Receipt	Original
Ex.A4	12.10.2012	Returned Legal Notice Cover	Original

 

For the Opposite Parties:-                                           

                                      -Nil- 

 

Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

Male Member                                                                        President