F.A.No.612 OF 2008 AGAINST C.D.NO.880 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I VISAKHAPATNAM

Between
Sri Vedula Narayana Rao
S/o late V.V.K.Sastry, Hindu
Aged 65 yrs, MIG 308, VUDA Colony
Babametta, Vizianagaram-535 002
                                                                   Appellant/ complainant

          A N D

M/s R.K.Township & Estates Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,
D.No.47-10-32, II Floor, Guttikonda Mansions,
Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam-530 016                                   

Respondent/ opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant               Ms Chaitanya Latha

Counsel for the Respondents         Sri Ch.Shanmukh Rao

QUORUM:            SMT M.SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER

&

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER

TUESDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

TWO THOUSAND NINE

( As per Sri K.Satyananad, Member)
***

          This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant questioning the order of the District Forum rejecting his claim.

          The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

          The complainant approached the opposite party, a realtor, with a view to purchase a plot measuring 400 sq.yds.  Accordingly on 8-6-2006 he paid Rs.1,60,000/- and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.3,20,000/- at the time of registration.  Originally the opposite party allotted plot No.59 to the complainant but later the opposite party changed it to 67 against the wishes of the complainant.  The disappointed complainant decided to pull out from the deal and therefore demanded the refund of the amount with interest.  On 6-1-2007 the opposite party refunded only an amount of Rs.1,39,500/- but a balance of Rs.20,500/- along with interest remained outstanding due from the opposite party who failed to develop the lay out and further changed the plot number. Inspite of legal notice got issued by the complainant, he did not pay back the amount so the complainant approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the real estate developer. 

          The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the payment of Rs.1,39,500/- which the complainant acknowledged was by way of full and final settlement or in other words in full quits. 

In support of his case, the complainant relied upon Exs.A1 and A2.  On the other hand the opposite party relied upon Ex.B1.

On a consideration of the material on record and hearing arguments, the District forum found that there was no deficiency in service as the complainant was paid off in full and he had no occasion to have any grouse against the opposite party.  Accordingly the District forum dismissed the complaint.

          Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed the present appeal contending inter-alia that the District Forum wrongly interpreted and placed reliance upon ex.B1 to attribute tothe complainant acceptance of the so called settlement found in the left part of the Ex.B1. 

          Heard both sides.  The points that arise for consideration are

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1)    <!--[endif]-->Whether the District Forum was right in construing Ex.B1 as evidencing an acknowledgment on the part of the complainant as signifying receipt of the amount therein by way of full and final settlement?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2)    <!--[endif]-->Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3)    <!--[endif]-->To what relief?

It is obvious that there are two independent parts in Ex.B1 which are hereinafter referred to as left side part and right side part.  While the left side part contained particulars, the right side part contained the receipt proper admittedly signed by the complainant.  The words ‘for full and final settlement’ are found only in the first part which did not contain the signature of the recipient in token of having accepted that waiver of a part of the amount which is naturally of some importance or significance as it involves sacrificing some amount without any evidence of justification for the same as contentious accounting or any                                              previous dispute precursor of  the full and final settlement.  If really the consumer gave up a part of claim without any apparent reason those words should have formed part of the right side part of Ex.B1, each part being a complete document in itself as obviously one part consists of particulars and the other consists of the receipt .  It is conspicuous from the document that the complainant appended his signature only to the receipt portion but not to the particulars portion.  So the theory of interpolation of those dubious words, propounded by the complainant is more probable than the conjectures and surmises harnessed by the Forum to uphold the theory of the opposite parties to the contra.    We are therefore of the considered opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum is not justified. 

In as much as the opposite party developer conducted himself in the deal in such a way as to drive the complainant to claim the refund of the amount, it itself is proof positive that the developer was guilty of deficiency in service.  Apart from that the developer made a vain bid to cut back some amount of the complainant without any plausible reason or justification.  This also marks deficiency in service.

In view of the above findings, this is a fit case where the complainant should be granted the full relief after setting aside the order of the District Forum.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and allowing the complaint directing the opposite party to refund the balance amount of Rs.20,500/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a, from 6-1-2007 till the date of realization as the money was unnecessarily locked up and the complainant’s hopes to own a site while the real estate prices were at an affordable level were dashed, the opposite party should also be accountable for the hardship and suffering it caused to the complainant.  In this view of the matter the opposite party shall also pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation to the complainant.  The opposite party shall also pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant by way of costs.  The opposite party shall comply with this order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.   

                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                                                                MEMBER.

                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                                            MEMBER

JM                                                                                                                                                Dt.15-9-2009