Date of filing:26.4.2013
Date of Disposal:27.6.2013
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013.
C.C.No.77 OF 2013.
Between :
Sri S.Swayambhu, S/o (Late) Bhogaiah, Residing at H.No.5-2-353/103, Hyderbasthi, Near Bible House, R.P.Road, Secunderabad – 3, Rep., by its G.P.A. Holder, S.R.Bhogendra Nath.
….. Complainant.
And
M/s Status Resorts (India) Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director Silver Castle, SF No.212/2, R.K.Puram, Shenbagnoor Post, Kodaikanal – 624 101, Tamil Nadu.
….. Opposite Party.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 25.6.2013 in the presence of Sri P.Krishna Rao, Advocate for complainant and of opposite party remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. The averments of the complaint are in brief:
The complainant is a retired government employee and a senior citizen residing at Hyderabad. The opposite party appointed representations at various places including Vijayawada for the purpose of selling holiday time share at Kodaikanal village. On the basis of offer made by the opposite party, the complainant purchased time share unit under agreement of sale. The complainant made the payment by way of cheque at Vijayawada. Thereon the complainant intended to change his property time share from 52nd week to either 18th or 19th week due to his illness and made a representation to the opposite party to that effect. The opposite party agreed to allot 18th unit time share on payment of transfer fee of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly the complainant paid the same by way of D.D. and as per the advice of the opposite party, the complainant sent the original agreement of sale to the opposite party for modification of time share unit from 52 to 18th in the document. But the opposite party failed to return the said document after modification inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant. While the matter stood thus, the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party requesting to keep the schedule property ready for stay with his family. The opposite party received the said notice and failed to confirm the schedule property to the complainant.
Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite party to send modified agreement of sale. The said notice was served on the opposite party, but they failed to send the modified agreement of sale as demanded by the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to send the modified agreement of sale, to the complainant, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for not confirming the schedule property to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay costs.
2. Notice was served to the opposite party but the opposite party was called absent.
3. On behalf of the complainant his G.P.A holder Sri S.R.Bhogendra Nath, the son of the complainant filed his proof affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.17.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party towards the complainant in not sending the modified sale agreement till now and not confirming the schedule time to the complainant on his request?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the documents on hand, on the basis of offer made by the opposite party, the complainant purchased time share unit at Kodaikanal Village under agreement of sale by paying the amount of Rs.20,000/- on 22.12.95; Rs.13,480/- on 6.2.96 and Rs.3,000/- on 3.2.97under Ex.,A.2 to Ex.A.4. The opposite party sent allotment of unit 52nd under allotment letter Ex.A.1 dated 6.2.1997. Subsequently the complainant intended to change his time share from 52nd to 18th or 19th unit due to his illness and made representation to that effect and the opposite party agreed to allot 18th unit time share on payment of Rs.1,000/- as transfer fee by sending letter Ex.A.6 dated 1.12.2003. The complainant paid transfer fee of Rs.1,000/- by sending cheque to opposite party under Ex.A.9 dated 19.2.2004. As per the advice of the opposite party under Ex.A.10 the complainant sent the original agreement of sale to the opposite party for modification of time share unit from 52nd to 18th in the document under Ex.A.11 dated 24.2.2004 by D.T.D.C. courier. The complainant says that the opposite party failed to return said document after modification inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant. The complainant says that he addressed a letter Ex.A.12 to the opposite party requesting to keep the schedule property ready for stay with his family. The opposite party received Ex.A.12 and failed to confirm the schedule property to the complainant. Therefore he got issued a legal notice Ex.A.13 dated 2.11.2012 demanding the opposite party to send modified agreement of sale. The opposite party returned the same under Ex.A.14. As there is no response from the opposite party, the complainant got issued another reminder legal notice Ex.A.15 dated 24.1.2013 demanding the opposite party to send modified sale agreement to the complainant and to say apology for not confirming the unit to stay the complainant at Kodaikanal and confirm the same in future and to ensure proper service in terms of agreement. The opposite party received the same under Ex.A.16 and kept quiet.
7. On hearing the counsel of the complainant we, the Forum came to understand that the complainant purchased the 52nd unit time share property from the opposite party in Kodaikanal Village by paying lump sum. Later he intended to change his time share unit from 52nd to 18th and on his request, the opposite party allotted the same by receiving transfer fee of Rs.1,000/- and requested the complainant to send the original allotment document to modify the time share from 52nd to 18th unit time share in it. The complainant sent the original document to the opposite party at his request. But the opposite party failed to return the same after modification to the complainant till now.
On the other hand the complainant wanted to spend in his allotted time unit along with his family from 5th May, 2012 to 11th May 2012 and informed the same to the opposite party through registered letter. As per sale agreement it is the right of the complainant to spend in time share unit agreed by the opposite party. But the opposite party failed to give accommodation as per sale agreement and no intimation was forwarded by the opposite party to the complainant in this respect. The cause of action continues till now, in returning the modified sale agreement to the complainant. Therefore we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not returning the modified sale agreement and not confirming the time share unit to the complainant even after receiving the request letters in both matters. Hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of this complaint. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.3:-
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to send the modified sale agreement, for delay in sending the same, for not confirming the accommodation to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand rupees only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand rupees only) as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected. Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27th day of June, 2013.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite party:-
P.W.1 S.R.Bhogendra Nath, None.
G.P.A holder of the complainant
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 06.02.1997 Photocopy of allotment letter issued by opposite party at Madras.
Ex. A.2 22.12.1995 Photocopy of receipt for Rs.20,000/-.
Ex.A.3 06.02.1996 Photocopy of receipt for Rs.13,480/-.
Ex.A.4 03.02.1997 Photocopy of receipt for Rs.3,000/-.
Ex.A.5 17.07.1997 Photocopy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.6 . . Photocopy of letter from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A.7 03.12.2003 Photocopy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.8 19.02.2004 Photocopy of letter from the complainant to the opposite Party along with courier receipt.
Ex.A.9 . . Photocopy of D.D. for Rs.1,000/- along with Draft Application Form.
Ex.A.10 . . Photocopy of address of the cover along with letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.11 24.02.2004 Photocopy of letter from the complainant to the opposite party along with courier receipt.
Ex.A.12 25.04.2011 Photocopy of letter from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A.13 02.11.2012 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.14 . . Unserved returned cover.
Ex.A.15 24.01.2013 Office copy of another legal notice along with tract result.
Ex.A.16 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.17 25.02.2013 Photocopy of letter from the Department of Post, Vijayawada
to the counsel for complainant.
For the opposite party:-
NiL.
PRESIDENT
