Telangana

StateCommission

CC/66/2011

1. SANJEET KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, S/O DR.S. SRIVASTAVA, FLAT NO.601, SOUTH BLOCK, HALLMARK EXPRESS TOWERS, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MODI SHELTERS PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.SAURABH MODI, - Opp.Party(s)

DR.P.B.VIJAYA KUMAR,

25 Feb 2013

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/66/2011
 
1. 1. SANJEET KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, S/O DR.S. SRIVASTAVA, FLAT NO.601, SOUTH BLOCK, HALLMARK EXPRESS TOWERS,
WHITE FIELDS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD.
2. 2. MRS. SRAVANTHI NANDAM, W/O SRI SANJEET KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,
FLAT NO.601, SOUTH BLOCK, HALLMARK EXPRESS TOWERS, WHITE FIELDS, KONDAPUR,
HYDERABAD.
A.P.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S MODI SHELTERS PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.SAURABH MODI,
S/O SRI SATISH MODI, R/O NO.5-4-187/3&4, III FLOOR, SOHAM MANSION, M.G.ROAD, SECUNDRABAD.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MR. SRI R. LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO PRESIDING MEMBER
 HONABLE MR. T.Ashok Kumar MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

C.C.No.66 OF 2011

 

Between:

 

1.  Sanjeet

 

2.  Mrs 

Both are R/o Flat No.601, South Block
Hallmark Express Towers, White Fields
                                                 AND

 

M/s

By its Managing Director

Mr.SaurabhAged 37 years, R/o No.5-4-187/3&4,

III Floor,Secunderabad-003

                                                                       

                                                                               

Counsel for the complainant         Counsel for the opposite parties     

QUORUM:        

                                               SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

 

MONDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

                       

 

                                                                           

1.    `32`10 lakh towards damages and compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and`15,000/- towards costs.

2.    `33,02,500/-.  `93,207/-. 

3.      

 1.           

 

 4.   `2,93,702/- and the complainant’s got issued reply on 26.2.2010 requesting for refund of the amount paid together with interest for breach of terms of agreement of sale.   

5.              `2     

6.            `10`2,95,964/- towards balance amount payable and`7,17,223/- towards interest for the delayed payment as per the terms of the agreement.  st      

7.             

8.            

9.            

1.  Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2.  To what relief?

 

10.                   `33,02,500/-.   

11.           

That the Vendee in pursuance of the agreement shall pay the sale consideration of Rs.33

 

 

Installment

Amount

Due date for payment

1.

Booking amount

Rs.  

Paid

2.

Confirmation Amount

Rs.  

Paid

3.a

Margin Amount Part-1

Rs.2,27,500/-

Paid by vide chq.No.683967 Dt.28/8/05

4.a

Housing Loan/self

First instalment

Rs.18,00,000/-

20 days from date of this agreement

4.b

Housing Loan/self-Second instalment

Rs. 

8 months from date of agreement/upon completion of roads & sewerage and lighting works (whichever is earlier)

4.c

Housing Loan/Instalment

Rs. 

9 months from date of agreement commencement of construction of house (whichever is earlier)

4.d

Housing Loan/Self Fourth

Rs. 

15 months from date of agreement casting of First Slab (whichever is earlier)

4.e

Home loan/Self Final

Rs. 

On handover of possession

 

12.       

16.     

 

12.           

The Buyer shall pay to the Builder the consideration of Rs.22

S.No.

Amount

Due date of payment

1.

Rs.3,02,500/-

Paid

2.

Rs.4,66,000/-

To be paid by M/s ICICI bank within 7 days from date of this agreement

3.

Rs.9,00,000/-

3 months from date of agreement/upon completion of roads & sewerage and lighting works (whichever is earlier)

4.

Rs.3,00,000/-

9 months from date of agreement commencement of construction of house (whichever is earlier)

5.

Rs.1,50,000/-

12 months from date of agreement casting of first slab (whichever is earlier)

6.

Rs.1,50,000/-

On handover of possession

 

8.          

9.           

13.               

14.            `2  `2 

15.            `32,63,500/- towards total cost of the house and a sum of`2,93,207/- is due from them payable  

16.              17.             

18.             

 

“Themain grievance of complainant in the case is that because there had been absolute absence of basic facilities in the said scheme proposed by opposite parties and in the absence of the above said, raising construction on it was also not probable, therefore, he requested to the opposite parties to refund his security amount. Earlier to this he sought the information from opposite parties as to by which time proposed facilities and basic facilities would be made available in the area of the said plot, but opposite parties did not deem it just to provide any information to complainant and did not send any reply to his letter and notice also. In our opinion, when opposite parties failed to tell to complainant as to by which time the said basic facilities would be made available in the Housing scheme, the in such situation, raising demand by complainant for refunding his security amount of his plot was not unjust or illegal, reason being when opposite parties are mentioning in their allotment letter about re-allotment of the said plot and opposite parties cannot suffer any loss in re-allotment of the plot. In addition to this, in the conditions of allotment published by the opposite parties about the said scheme, copy of which has been placed on record on behalf of complainant, no any such condition of forfeiting of security amount has been mentioned and nor any such condition which would have been established according to law or rules, has been produced before us. Therefore, under all these circumstance, in our opinion, not refunding his security amount amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties and we deem it just to order the opposite parties that they refund the security amount of Rs.21

 

 

19.              `10,000/-. 

20.            `32`10,000/-.  The costs of the complaint are fixed at`5,000/-. 

 

 

                                                                        

 

                                                                                                                      కెఎంకె*

                       

 

       

       

For complainants                                        

NIL                                                                  EXHIBITS MARKED

For complainants

Ex.A1               

Ex.A2               

Ex.A3               

Ex.A4               

Ex.A5               Ex.A6               

Ex.A7               

Ex.A8               

Ex.A9               Letter dated 10.03.2009 of the opposite party to the complainants

Ex.A10       Certificate of Incorporation

 

For opposite parties

Ex.B1               

Ex.B2               

Ex.B3               

 

 

        

              

 
 
[HONABLE MR. SRI R. LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HONABLE MR. T.Ashok Kumar]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.