Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/90/2014

Smt. Marada Bharathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s R.K. Township Constructions Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.V. Parandhamahyya

27 Jul 2015

ORDER

                  Reg. of the Complaint:19-03-2014                                                                                                                 

Date of Order:27-07-2013

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

MONDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.90/2014

 

BETWEEN:

Smt.Marada Bharathi W/o M.Narasan Naidu,

Hindu, aged 59 years, r/at d.no.49-44-24,

Near Chinnuru, Akkayyapalem,

Visakhapatnam-16.

…Complainant

AND:

M/s R.K.Township Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director,

r/at D.No.47-10-32, Guthikonda Mansions,

Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

…Opposite Party

 

This case coming on 23-07-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of   SRI D.S.V.PARANDHAMAHYYA, Advocate for the Complainant, and of                                     SRI R.LAKSHMANA RAO, Advocate for the Opposite Party, 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.       The Complainant filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties, directing them to refund an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of payment till realization, failing so, to register the flat in the name of complainant at her expenses by receiving balance amount, Rs.2,00,000/- compensation with costs.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that basing on Exhibit A1 Brochure issued by OP, she attracted and joined as a member and purchased an extent of 200sq.yds for a total consideration amount of Rs.5,40,000/- on 06-09-2007 and obtained pass book No.125, bearing Plot no.129 in the venture in the name and style of Sri Lakshmi  Brundavan and immediately after issuance of passbook by OP, she paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereafter paid regularly upto       09-07-2008, a total amount of Rs.2,95,000/- out of the above said total cost of the plot . But, the OP has not furnished the approved layout plan in spite of repeated requests and demands and she approached the office of OP several times and again requested them to show the site on ground and layout approval and get the plot registered in her name as she is ready to pay the remaining balance amount at a time,  but there is no proper response. Surprisingly, she received letter if she is not coming forward for registration and demanding further amounts from her for the alleged development charges, she approached them and questioned about their letter, they informed that letter was sent on routine basis when she demanded for registration as she is ready with balance of amount, there is no response, hence, she got issued a registered legal notice and the same was received by them but neither they gave any reply nor took any action against the demands by the complainant. Hence this complaint.

3.       The case of OP denying the material averments of the complaint admitted that the complaint joined as a member in RK’s Sri Lakshmi Brundavan  Layout and paid part of the subscription amount and they have issued pass book no.125  and further submitted that the complainant is a defaulter in regular payment of installments and paid only Rs.2,95,000/- out of Rs.5,40,000/- including the development charges. They have obtained necessary layout plan from concerned authority. They addressed number of letters to the complainant to come forward for registration but they have not cooperated. Therefore, this complaint is not maintainable.

4.       That at no point of time, the complainant approached them and that is the reason why, the complainant is not mentioned the dates of approach. The complainant has not interested to get the flat registered by paying the balance amount, the latches are on the part of the complainant only and the they are ready to register the flat after payment of balance consideration along with present prevailing developments charges @ 500/- per sq.yd and registration charges, due to financial problems, the complainant did not pay the amount. For these reasons, the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

5.       To prove the case of the complaint, the complainant filed her affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A9. On other hand, on behalf of the OP, they filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Exhibit B1.

6.       Exhibit A1 is the Broacher, Exhibit A2 is the Plot allotment letter, dated 06-09-2007, Exhibit A3 is the Pass Book, dated 06-09-2007, Exhibit A4 is the Correspondence Letter, dated 24-12-2012, Exhibit A5 is the Postal Receipt, Exhibit A6 is the Correspondence letter, dated 4-3-2013, Exhibit A7 is the Registered Lawyer Notice, dated 30-04-2013, Exhibit A8 is the Acknowledgment and Exhibit A9 is the Layout Plans.

7.       Exhibit B1 is the Letter of Government of A.P., 02-12-2008.

8.       Both parties filed their respective written arguments.

9.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

10.     Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

11.     As seen from the pleadings on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant joined as a member in R.K’s Sri Lakshmi Brundavan Layout (OP) and paid an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- and the OPs have issued Pass Book No.125,  and the total amount of  Rs.5,40,000/-. According to the complainant, inspite of  her readiness and willingness with balance of sale consideration, the OP did not come forward for registration as the layout was not approved. According to OP, they got L.P. in the year 2007 and in spite of their readiness and willingness for registration, the complainant has not cooperated with them with the balance of sale consideration. Exhibit B1 clearly shows that the OP has got approval from the concerned authority vide LP NO.103/08. Now it is to be seen whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

12.     It is evident as seen from the pleadings, both parties to this case are denying each other with regard to the readiness and willingness for execution of a regular sale deed on receipt of balance of sale consideration.  The evidence in this regard is also oath against oath only and the present case is filed for return of the amount paid by the complainant to the OP. In this regard, the complainant gave notice dated 30-04-2013 having received the same, b ut no reply was sent by OP. The Notice averments clearly go to show that the complainant is ready to pay the remaining balance amount at a time as directed but the officials of OP, postponing the issue on one pretext or the other and thereby called upon the OP either to get it register the flat, failing legal action will be taken. Having received the notices and agreeing to execute the registered sale deed after receipt of the balance of amount, OP kept quite.  All these acts of the OP, in our considered view, amounts to deficiency of service on their part.  For these reasons, we are inclined to allow the complainant directing the OP to return back the amount paid by the complainant Rs.2,95,000/- within a month along with the interests and costs.

13.     Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion is, 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, A2  and A3 are commercial in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is licensed to claim interest @ 24% p.a., 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 @ 9% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix the rate of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of last payment i.e., 09-07-2008,   Accordingly interest is ordered.

14.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00, 000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of Complainant 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-disputed fact that the Opposite Parties did not refund the amount to the complainant.   Naturally, that might have put the Complainant to suffer some 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 is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 30,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.30,000/-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

15.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainants ought         not have to approach this Forum had his claim for refund of Rs.2,95,000/- 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 costs deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly     costs are awarded.

16.     In the light of our discussion, referred supra, the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of registration of Complainant till the date of realization, a compensation of Rs.30,000/- and costs of Rs.2,500/-.

17.     In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2,95,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs and Ninety Five Thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of last payment i.e., 09-07-2008, till the date of realization, a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant. Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 27^th day of July, 2015.      

Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT  

    

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A1		Broucher	Original
A2	06-09-2007	Plot Allotment letter	Original
A3	06-09-2007	Pass Book	Original
A4	24-12-2012	Correspondence Letter	Office copy
A5		Postal Receipt	Original
A6	04-03-2013	Correspondence letter	Office copy
A7	30-04-2013	Registered Lawyer’s Notice	Office copy
A8		Acknowledgement	Original
A9		Layout Plans	Copy

For the Opposite Party:-  

 

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B1	02-12-2008	Letter from Government of AP.	Photocopy

 

Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT