Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/148/2013

G.V.V.N. B. Pushpa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Secured Investment Making Services (I) Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Konatala Jaya and K Premananda Rao

06 Nov 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:12-06-2013

                                                                                                Date of Order:06-11-2014

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 6^th day of November, 2014.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.148/2013

Between:-

M/s G.V.V.N.B. Pushpa, D/o D.V. Ramesh Babu

Hindu, aged 30 years, residing at D.No.43-1-30,

Chakalipeta, Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam.

….. Complainant

And:-

M/s Secured Investment Making Services (I) Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by it Chairman-cum-M.D, K. Surendra Gupta,

having its office at D.No.49-16-6, Lalitha Nagar,

Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam-530 016.

                                                                                           …  Opposite Party    

                     

          This case coming on 01.10.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Konathala Jaya & Sri Premananda Rao, Advocates for the Complainant and the Opposite Party being set exparte 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 by the Complainant directing the Opposite Party for refund the amount of Rs.2,73,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e., 31.01.2013 till the date of realization, and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony with costs to the Complainant. 

 

 2.      The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Opposite Party invited the general public to join in their company by promised to give huge interest on the amount deposited; believing the same he joined in this scheme by depositing Rs.2,73,000/- on 23.01.2013 which was acknowledged by the Opposite Party agreed to provide plot No.37 at Laxmipuram-3, Chodavaram and also agreed to pay monthly returns but no plot is allotted, inspite of repeated demands made by him.    Hence, this Complaint.

 

3.       The case of the Opposite Party denying all the material averments is that the subject in dispute does not fall, within the purview of the consumer dispute.   Hence, Complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable even assuming without admitting, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and the civil court alone is having jurisdiction.

The transaction covered by confirm letter dated 14.03.2003 on payment of some consideration attracts stamp duty and also registration and the Complainant approached this Forum with a malafide intention to make a wrongful gain.

 

 4.      Without the costs of the plot being Rs.2,80,350/- and the development cost being Rs.40,050/- the Complainant shall pay Rs.3,20,400/- towards the charges for the subject plot and the Complainant paid only Rs.2,62,000/- by way of installments and she did not pay any other amount till this dat.   The Opposite Party was always prepared to comply and fulfill their part of obligations, but only due to the willful failure on the part of the Complainant they were unable to execute Registered Sale Deed.   Hence, there is no deficiency whatsoever, on the part of the Opposite Party.   There are no bonafides on the part of the Complainant.   For these reasons, stated that the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought for and it is liable to be dismissed.

      

5.       To prove the case of the Complainant, she filed her sworn evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 is and A2.   On the other hand, on behalf of the Opposite Party no evidence affidavit is filed inspite of reasonable opportunities are given so also failed to mark any documents on their behalf.

 

6.       The Complainant filed written arguments.

 

7.       Heard the Complainant.

 

 

 

8.       Now the point that would arise for determination is:-

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

 

9.       The Complainant in her evidence affidavit filed had sworn to the relevant contents of the Complaint.   Her evidence is collaborated by Ex.A1 dated 23.01.2013 receipt for Rs.2,73,000/- and Ex.A2 dated 18.02.2013 the FIR of 4^th Town.   The evidence of PW-1 clearly and categorically goes to show the Opposite Party invited the general public to join in their company to give huge interest on amount deposited believing the same, she joined this scheme by depositing Rs.2,73,000/- and they passed a receipt and it was acknowledged by the Opposite Party and further agreed to provide plot No.37 at Laxmipuram-3, Chodavaram and also agreed to pay returns monthly, but inspite of repeated demands they postponed the same on some pretext or other.   On perusal of the evidence it is evident that the acts of the Opposite Party in non-payment of the amounts and non allotment of the plot as agreed comes under the definition of the deficiency of service.   Which also resulted lodging the complaint against the Opposite Party vide Ex.A2.   To rebut the evidence of the Complainant no contra evidence is let in by the Opposite Party, inspite of sufficient opportunities are given to them.   For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the Complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.2,73,000/- which he deposited with the Opposite Party with interest thereon.

 

10.     Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage 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 in 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 @ 9% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix at rate in question @ 9% p.a. on Ex.A1 in question.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

 

11.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation is to be considered.    It appears as seen from the evidence of PW-1that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Party and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss.  It is an un-dispute fact that the Opposite Party did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.    Naturally that made 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 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.

 

12.     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 her claim for refund of the sum of Rs.2,73,000/- or reliefs sought, for have been honored by the Opposite Party, 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.

 

13.     In the result, Complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite Party: a) to pay an amount of Rs.2,73,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs  Seventy three thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e., 23.01.2013 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 6^th day of November, 2014.

 

Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

Male Member                         Lady Member                                     President

 

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A1	23.01.2013	Receipt for Rs.2,73,000/- vide Receipt No.Z-1/C/1748	Original.
Ex.A2	18.02.2013	Complaint lodged with IVth Town Police station.	Photo copy

For the Opposite Party:-                                             

                                      -Nil- 

 

Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

Male Member                           Lady Member                                President