Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/48/2019

K.Lalithamma, W/o Late K.Bhaskar Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Sree Nidhi Shelters, A partnership firm, rep. by its authorized signatory, K.Uday Kumar. - Opp.Party(s)

M.Vani, P.Murali Krishna

11 Dec 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 24.04.2019

Order Date:11.12.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

 

C.C.No.48/2019

 

 

Between

 

 

K.Lalithamma,

W/o. late. K.Bhaskar Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 60 years,

D.No.9/66/21, New Maruthi Nagar,

Tirupati – 2.                                                                                      … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         M/s. Sree Nidhi Shelters,

            A partnership firm,

            Having office at No.429/31,

            2^nd Floor, 7^th ‘B’ Main,

            30^th Cross, 4^th Block,

            Jayanagar,

            Bangalore.

            Rep. by its authorized signatory K.Uday Kumar.

 

 

2.         M/s. Sree Nidhi Shelters,

            A partnership firm,

            Having office at No.429/31,

            2^nd Floor, 7^th ‘B’ Main,

            30^th Cross, 4^th Block,

            Jayanagar,

            Bangalore.

            Rep. by its authorized signatory E.Madhusudhan Rao. …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 11.12.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing M.Vani, counsel for complainant, and opposite parties remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            Complaint filed under Section-12(1) of C.P.Act 1986 with following allegations – Opposite parties are partnership firm represented by authorized signatories and carry on real estate business. They gave vide publicity about residential layout under the name and style of Sree Nidhi “Toyo citee” near Bangalore-Mysore highway, and offered plots for sale in the said layout. The complainant is the mother of one K.Kiran Kumar and K.Lavanya Reddy. The husband of the complainant is no more and children are employed in USA. The complainant paid advance sale consideration to the opposite parties with a view to purchase two house plots for her children. Such payment was made by the complainant from 23.08.2007 onwards periodically. But the opposite parties somehow failed in making a layout as promised by them. They kept the complainant waiting for long time, after receiving advance sale consideration from her periodically. When the complainant questioned the opposite parties about the delay, they stated that the property is involved in some other litigation and hence they offered to refund the sale consideration received by them, and on 23.07.2017 they gave 4 post dated cheques issued in the name of K.Kiran Kumar and K.Lavanya Reddy, to the complainant. One cheque bearing No.02403594 was issued for Rs.8,00,000/- in the name of K.Kiran Kumar dt:10.08.2017 drawn on Union Bank of India, Jaya Nagar Branch, Bangalore, signed by opposite parties. The other cheque bearing No.02403597 was issued for Rs.5,00,000/- dt:20.04.2018 in the name of K.Kiran Kumar, drawn on the same branch, signed by the opposite parties. Out of the two cheques, the cheque bearing No.02403594 was honoured, and the other cheque bearing No.02403597 was dishonoured upon presentation in the bank on 24.05.2018, and the same was intimated to the complainant through return memo with an endorsement as “payment stopped”. Similarly, cheque bearing No.02403593 for Rs.9,00,000/- was issued in the name of K.Lavanya Reddy dt:10.08.2017 drawn on Union Bank of India signed by opposite parties, along with another cheque bearing No.02403596 dt:20.04.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of K.Lavanya Reddy, drawn on the same branch signed by opposite parties. Out of the said two cheques, the cheque bearing No.02403593 for Rs.9,00,000/- was honoured and amount collected, but the other cheque bearing No.02403596 was dishonoured upon presentation in the bank on 24.05.2018 and the same was intimated to the complainant through return memo with an endorsement as “payment stopped”. Infact the complainant tried to contact the opposite parties, to question them about such dishonor, but they evaded to reply the complainant. The complainant is a consumer as defined under C.P.Act and the opposite parties are duty bound to discharge their obligation towards the complainant, but failed to do so and thus committed deficiency in service. The complainant was put to monitory loss and had undergone mental agony. The complainant is entitled for refund of advance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- repayable to her by the opposite parties, as covered under dishonored cheques along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of cheque along with compensation. The complainant caused legal notice to opposite parties on 04.06.2018, asking them to repay the money. But the opposite parties managed to get the notice returned with endorsement “unclaimed”. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this complaint seeking redressal and prayed for a direction to the opposite parties, to repay the advance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- covered under post dated cheques issued by them with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of cheque till realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship and to pay costs of the litigation.

            2.  The opposite parties remained exparte, as they failed to appear before this Forum to contest the case.

            3.  The complainant filed chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9.

            4.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

            5. Point:- Ex.A1 is cheque bearing No.02403597 issued by the opposite parties in the name of K.Kiran Kumar for Rs.5,00,000/- dt:20.04.2018. Ex.A2 is bank endorsement showing the reason as “payment stopped by the drawer”. Ex.A3 is legal notice dt:04.06.2018 issued by the complainant against the opposite parties claiming Rs.5,00,000/- covered under the dishonoured cheque Ex.A1. Ex.A4 is returned cover with endorsement “not claimed by the opposite parties”. Ex.A5 is cheque bearing No.02403596 issued for Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of K.Lavanya Reddy, by the opposite parties dt:20.04.2018. Ex.A6 is returned endorsement by the bank stating the reason “payment stopped by the drawer”. Ex.A7 is legal notice issued to the opposite parties dt:04.06.2018 claiming Rs.5,00,000/- covered under the dishonoured cheque Ex.A5. Ex.A8 is returned cover with endorsement “not claimed by the opposite parties”. Ex.A9 is general power of attorney given by K.Lavanya Reddy and K.Kiran Kumar to the complainant authorizing her to appear and represent before the Civil and Criminal Courts, to initiate litigations in connection with the deal with opposite parties.

            6.  The case of the complainant is that she is the mother of K.Kiran Kumar and K.Lavanya Reddy, and they entered into deal with opposite parties with regard to purchase of two house plots, and also paid amounts periodically from 23.08.2007 onwards, but the opposite parties failed to deliver the house plots and offered to refund the sale consideration already received by them, and in pursuance of the said offer, they issued 4 post dated cheques to the complainant, but out of the 4 cheques only 2 cheques were honoured and she got back the amount covered under those cheques. But with regard to other 2 cheques issued in favour of K.Kiran Kumar and K.Lavanya Reddy for Rs.5,00,000/- each on 20.04.2018 i.e. Ex.A1 and Ex.A5, she did not get the amount, as the cheques signed by the opposite parties were dishonoured when presented in the bank for encashment.

            7.  In order to prove her case, the above referred documents are filed. The opposite parties did not contest the matter and as such we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved her case against the opposite parties with regard to the allegation that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Hence, we are inclined to allow this complaint.

            8.  In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties, to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- each) (Rupees ten lakhs only) covered under the post dated cheques Ex.A1 and Ex.A5 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of cheque i.e. 20.04.2018 till realization, and also to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and also to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The order shall be complied within 8 (eight) weeks from the date of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.               

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of December, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                              

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Smt. K. Lalithamma   (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Union Bank of India cheque issued by the opposite parties bearing cheque No. 02403597, Dt: 20.04.2018 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.
	Original copy of Cheque Return Memo. Dt.24.05.2018.
	Office copy of Legal Notice Dt: 04.06.2018 along with postal receipts(2).
	Returned Covers 2 in number along with Ack. Dues(2). Dt: 07.06.2018.
	Original copy of Union Bank of India cheque issued by the opposite parties bearing cheque No. 02403596, Dt: 20.04.2018 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.
	Original copy of Cheque Return Memo. Dt.24.05.2018.
	Office copy of Legal Notice Dt: 04.06.2018 along with postal receipts (2).
	Returned Covers 2 in number along with Ack. Dues (2). Dt: 07.06.2018.
	True copy of General Power of Attorney executed by the children of the complainant in her favour.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                                        President (FAC)

                                   // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.