Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/59/2014

Velamur Muralidhar, S/o. V.N.Chary, aged 58 years, Working Employee in Vijaya Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Sree Nakshathra Builders & Developers India Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director K.Br - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

27 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                          Filing Date:-30-10-2014                                                                                                                                                                                    Order Date: -27-06-2015.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                                                                     SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER

                              SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

C.C.No.59/2014

Between

Velamur Muralidhar, S/o. V.N.Chary

Hindu, aged 58 years, working employee

in Vijaya Bank, residing at D.No.8-28,

Samajam Street, Tiruchanur, Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                                     …. Complainant

 

And

i) M/s.Sree Nakshathra Builders & Developers India

Private Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director

K.Bramha Reddy, Simhapuri Towers, No.24/1/1510,

3^rd Floor, Near Bollineni Super Speciality Hospital,

Darga Mitta, G.N.T. Road, Nellore-524003,

S.P.S.R.District.

 

ii) The Branch Manager,

M/s.Sree Nakshathra Builders & Developers

India Private Ltd., IDBI Bank (Upstairs),

AIR By-Pass Road,

Near Annamaiah Circle,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.

 

                                                                                                           …. Opposite parties

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 12.06.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.G.Ramaiah pillai counsel for the complainant, Sri. A.Keerthisekhar counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 2 and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           This complaint is filed under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties by praying this Honourable Forum to direct the opposite parties 1&2 to pay sum of Rs.58,682/- being the accrued interest @ 18% per annum on deposit amount of Rs.1,80,675/- as on 24.09.2012 till the last day of payment of 18.09.2014 and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to pay costs of  Rs.2,000/-.

           2. The brief facts of the case are: The opposite parties who are dealing the real estate business by acquiring land in and around the temple city of Tirupati have floated a housing scheme in the name and style of Sree. Nakshatra by acquiring land in A.M.Puram Village of Vadamalapeta Mandal covered in survey No. 71/1 to 71/6 etc., during the year 2012. The complainant who is inspired by the said scheme, in order to purchase a plot had entered into an agreement on 24.09.2012 bearing a plot No.110 in the above said scheme consisting of 77 ankanams amounting to Rs.3,61,350/- and he paid an advance of Rs.1,80,675/-  on 24.09.2012with an undertaking to pay the balance amount within 60 days. In turn the opposite party promised hand over the title deeds including the approved plan as per the sale agreement dated 24.09.2012. The complainant further submits that when he approached the branch office of opposite parties at Tirupati within the stipulated time to pay the balance amount, the opposite Party informed that there is a land dispute with regard to the site and after the settlement only the registration can be possible. Hence the opposite parties failed to perform their part of obligation under the agreement in registering the plot despite the oral demands made by the complainant and subsequently they were postponing to register the plot. The complainant further submits that the opposite party without having clear title and layout approval from the competent authority, acquiring the land and projected the housing scheme in order to collect the amounts from the customers  in advance and misappropriating the funds, which were collected from the customers. Hence it amounts not only unfair trade practice but also cheating the public. At last after repeated requests made by the complainant to the opposite parties for the registration of the plot, at last they came forward to refund the deposit amount of Rs.1,80,675/- and paid in four installments. The last installment was paid to the complainant on 18.09.2014 and as no interest was paid to the amount which was collected by them at the time of agreement of sale i.e. for Rs.1,80,675/-. Finally the complainant caused a legal notice on 07.10.2014 to the opposite parties by demanding the payment of interest of Rs.58,682/-. After receipt of the said notice also the opposite parties fails to pay the same. Hence he filed this complaint.

            3.  On behalf of the opposite parties one A.Keerthi Sekhar, Advocate filed the vakalat for the opposite parties 1&2 and filed the written version of opposite party no.2 along with the adoption memo of opposite party no.1. The opposite party admitted the scheme which was promoted by them in the name and style of Sree.Nakshatra in which the complainant agreed to purchase the plot no.110 and also admitted the sale agreement dated 24.09.2012 and admitted the receipt of an advance of Rs.1,80,675/- out of Rs.3,61,350/-. But the opposite parties further contended that they got approval of layout under vide approval confirmation proceedings issued by the TUDA Vice Chairman, Tirupati vide LP No.30/G1/2013 and also stated that they are ready to perform their part of obligation in order to execute the register the sale deed in favour of the complainant by receiving remaining balance amount but the complainant expressed that his mother is suffering with serious health problems as he is in financial crisis and he expressed his inability to pay the balance amount, and as such, requested them to pay back the said amount which were received at the time of agreement. Accordingly the opposite parties paid the entire amount Rs.1,80,675/- and after receiving the said amount by the complainant and he himself returned the original documents of agreement to the opposite parties. Hence the question of payment of further interest amount does not arise as the complainant himself with drawn to perform his part of contract as he is in financial crisis. Hence there are no latches on part of them and also there is no deficiency of service on part them and they are not liable to pay any interest for the amount which was already paid to the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            4. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked the Ex.A1 to A5, and on behalf of the opposite parties one K.Brahma Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy Managing Director, M/s. Sree. Nakshatra Builders and Developers India Private Ltd., filed evidence on affidavit. But the opposite parties along with their written version filed documents but they failed to mention those documents by way of evidence on affidavit.  Both parties filed their written arguments. On behalf of the complainant oral arguments were heard, but on behalf of the opposite parties after several adjournments granted by this Forum. The opposite parties counsel was not turn up. Hence the matter is reserved for orders.

         On the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, and documents filed by both parties the points for consideration are:     

              (i)      Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties?

              (ii)     Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

              (iii)    To what Result?

            5. Point No:-(i). There is no dispute that the opposite parties 1&2 are doing real estate business and in order to develop their business they promoted several layouts in and around temple city of Tirupati and  the proposed layout by name Sree.Nakshatra was also promoted by them , same was admitted by them  and the complainant who intend to purchase a plot in the above said layout which costs Rs. 3,61,350/- and entered into an agreement with opposite parties on 24.09.2012 and he paid  an advance of Rs.1,80,675/- and promised to pay the remaining balance of sale consideration within 60 days from the date of the agreement and got register the plot in his name, same was admitted by the opposite parties. The next contention of the complainant is that he approached the opposite parties several times for the registration of the plot, but the opposite parties instead of registering the plot they informed the complainant that the said layout is having the land dispute regarding the title of the property, hence the plot cannot be registered until the dispute is cleared. After several requests made by the complainant to the opposite parties to register the plot, at last the opposite parties returned the agreement amount to him in four installments, but they fail to pay the interest for the said amount. The next contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties without any clear title and approved plan promoted the scheme in order to defraud the customers by collecting the huge amounts and misappropriate those amounts in order to get wrongful gain. Because in   Ex.A2 in the agreement date is mentioned as 24.09.2012 but in Ex.A5 photo copy of proceedings of approved layout was passed by the TUDA authorities on 11.08.2014.Which is after lapse of 23 months from the date of the agreement. The complainant further contended that without any proper approval the opposite parties floated a scheme and also make a false representation that the said layout got approved by the TUDA which is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Hence they are liable to pay the interest for the advance amount received from him fraudulently by opposite parties.

            The counsel for the opposite parties filed their written version and written arguments by admitting the receipt of the advance amount of Rs.1,80,675/- from the complainant and stated that they are ready to register the plot in the name of the complainant by  receiving  balance sale consideration, but the complainant himself approached them and requested to return the advance amount as he is unable to pay the balance sale consideration as he is in financial crisis  because his mother was seriously ill. Hence they returned the advance amount to the complainant in four installments, and he surrendered the original agreement of sale to them. Hence there are no latches on part of them, because of the request of the  complainant only they returned the amount and  hence they are not liable to pay any interest to the above said advance amount when there is no deficiency of service on part of them. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

             By perusing the documents, affidavits and written arguments filed by both complainant and opposite parties, it clearly shows that there is no dispute regarding the   promotion of layout and also the execution of the agreement dated 24.09.2012 and also the payment made by the complainant i.e.Rs.1,80,675/- out of sale consideration of Rs.3,61,350/-  to the opposite parties in order to purchase the plot no.110 in the proposed layout of the opposite parties. The complainant stated that he is ready to perform his contract at any time as stipulated in the agreement Ex.A.2., and also he is ready to pay the balance amount for the registration of the plot and also he is stated that the opposite parties expressed their inability because the said layout is not having any approval by the date of the agreement and also there is some land dispute regarding the title of the said property should be cleared in order to execute the sale deed. But as per the Ex.A5 that the said layout got approval on 11.08.2014 which is after the lapse of nearly  2 years from the date of agreement of sale dated 24.09.2012 itself clearly shows that the opposite parties concealed above facts at the time of promoting the scheme and also in Ex.A1 the brochure which is in the form of booklet, in that brochure the opposite parties printed their several layouts and the above said layout is also mentioned as TUDA approval  which  attracts the common persons who intends to the own a plot in temple city,  that itself clearly shows the motive of the opposite parties that, without the proper approval they have printed the beautiful brochures which is nothing but unfair trade practice which has to be curtailed.  The opposite parties fail to place any documentary proof that the complainant himself requested them and expressed his inability to pay the balance consideration because he is in financial crisis as he is unable to pay the balance sale consideration which cannot be considered without any proof of communication between complainant and opposite parties. In Ex.A5 it clearly shows that there are latches on part of opposite parties without any proper approval they promoted the scheme by preparing beautiful brochures and distributed to the public, and misappropriate those amounts into their own business in order to fetch profits with the amount of the customers. Hence we are of the opinion that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant.

             Hence in this particular case the opposite parties received the amount of Rs.1,80,675/- from the complainant on 24.09.2012 and repay the amount  to the complainant in four installments and paid the last installment on 8.09.2014,  which is after lapse of 22 months from the date of  the payment of the Rs.1,80,675/-. Hence even if the complainant deposited the said amount in any Nationalized Bank he may fetch the interest @ 9% per annum, hence in this particular case it is reasonable to grant interest @ 9%per annum . Hence the complainant is entitled for the interest at Rs. @ 9% per annum from the date of the payment of Rs.1,80,675/- i.e.24.09.2012 till the last payment made by the opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered against the opposite parties.  

          6. Point: - (ii). As the point discussed above that there is a deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment of Rs.1,80,675/- on 24.09.2012.

 

               Particulars of payment made by the opposite parties:

                Amount refunded on 13-08-2014                      Rs. 60,000-00

                Amount refunded on 25-08-2014                      Rs. 30,000-00

                Amount refunded on 12-09-2014                      Rs. 50,000-00

                Amount refunded on 18-09-2014                      Rs. 40,675-00

 

                                                                                    Total:  Rs.1,80,675-00

                                                                                                                                                                         

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

                 Calculations of interest for the amounts paid by the complainant:                                                                                                         

   Int for Rs.1,80,675 @ 9 % p.a. from 24.09.2012 to 13.08.2014         =      30,443-00

                                                                   (22 Months 14 Days)

         First installment paid by op i.e. on 13.08.2012 =Rs.60,000-00

                        Int calculated for Rs. (1, 80,675-60,000) = 1, 20,675/-

         Second installment paid by op i.e. on 25.08.2014.Rs.30,000-00

    Int for 1,20,675/-(12days) @ 9% p.a.  :                                               =          362 -00 

         Third installment paid on 12.09.2014= Rs.50,000-00

                                  (Rs.1,20,675-30,000) = 90,675/-

     Int for Rs.90, 675 for 18 days @ 9% p.a. :                                          =           396-00

         Fourth installment paid on 18.09.2014 = Rs.40,675

                                        (Rs.90, 675-50,000)= 40,675

     Int for Rs.40, 675 for 6days @ 9 % p.a :                                            =              60-00 

                                                                                                          __________________                    

                                                                                       Total    :                      31,261-00

                                                                                                          ___________________

                        

              As per the calculations mentioned above the complainant is entitled for interest of Rs.31, 261/- for Rs.1,80,675/- @ 9%per annum.  The complainant is further entitled of Rs.5,000/-towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties.

         7. Point (iii):-     In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1&2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.31,261(rupees thirty one thousand two hundred and sixty one only) being the accrued interest @ 9% per annum for Rs.1,80,675/- and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousands only) towards compensation Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousands only) towards costs. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the above said order within six weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. If they fails to comply the above the said order Rs.31,261/-(rupees thirty one thousand two hundred and sixty one only) and Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousands only) compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.

            Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation in Open Forum, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open forum this the 27^th day of June, 2015.

         Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

C.C.No.59/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

 

 

PW-1:  Velamur Muralidhar  (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

RW-1:  K.Brahma Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed)

RW-2:  P.Sunil Krishna    (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

              EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits (Ex-A).	Description of Documents
	Booklet containing the housing scheme of Sree Nakshathra at A.M.Puram village, Vadamalapeta Mandal.
	A photo copy of Agreement of Sale of plot no.110 consisting 73 ankanams covering under S.No.71/1 to 6 etc. of A.M.Puram village by the Managing Director for a consideration of Rs.3,61,350/- by receiving advance amount of Rs.1,80,675 as per receipt. Dt: 12.09.2012.
	Office copy of legal notice issued to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 with postal acknowledgement of Opposite Party No.2. Dt: 06.10.2014.
	Reply from Opposite Parties Legal notice issued by the complaint on 05.11.2014.
	A Photo Copy of Proceedings in Roc.No.982/G1/2014, Dt: 11.08.2014 regarding Approval of Layout released by TUDA in relating to Survey No.71/1 to 6, 66/2 and 1F of A.M.Puram Village.

 

                 EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

                   NIL

 

                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                               President

 

 

 

 

           

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

Copies to:  The Complainant

                   The opposite parties.