This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 17-09-14                                in the presence of Sri K.Sree Rama Murthy, advocate for complainant, Sri B.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-      The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite parties to register the plot No.37A north east corner measuring to 200 sq.yards in her favour or return of Rs.80,000/- together with interest @24% p.a. from the date of payment; Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.  

2.      In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

          The 2^nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant is a member of the opposite parties under the group Sri Aditya Gardens extension. The opposite parties stated that they obtained lay out permission from the concerned authorities of A.P. Government The complainant paid Rs.300/- towards enrollment fee.  The complainant had chosen to purchase a plot situated towards north east corner measuring 200 Sq.yards for Rs.2,00,000/-  The opposite parties offered a concession rate to the complainant   if entire  amount is paid with in a month either in lump sum or in installments.  The complaint in all paid Rs.80,000/- within a month. The opposite parties are not willing to receive the remaining balance of consideration though the complainant offered. In spite of several demands the opposite parties have not come forward to receive the remaining balance of consideration and register the said plot in the said venture.  It amounted to unfair business practice and comes under the purview of deficiency in service.  The opposite parties gave reply with false allegations to the notice issued by the complainant.  The opposite parties with a view to defraud public including the complainant collected huge amounts from the public in crores of rupees and showed empty hands to the public.  Due to above attitude and behavior of the opposite parties the complainant suffered a lot mentally and financially.  The complaint therefore may be allowed.    

3.   The contention of the opposite parties in nutshell is hereunder:

          The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The 2^nd opposite party has no personal liability. At the time of purchase the opposite parties informed the complainant about permissions to be obtained from the government and also the delay in registering plots who in turn accepted and purchased the said plot from the opposite parties through installments.  The opposite parties issued pass book for the installments paid by the complainant.  After paying the installments the opposite parties required one year time for registration.  From January 2014 the company is registering respective plots and passed information to all their customers.  The complainant with a malafide intention did not approach the opposite parties and filed this complaint.  The opposite parties suspect that busy bodies are behind the complainant.  The complainant is also due of development charges and thus is a defaulter.  Without paying entire dues the complainant erroneously and illegally filed this complaint to defame the opposite parties in the public.  The opposite parties are always willing to register the plot to the complainant after clearing all dues including development charges.  The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service.  The complainant misused this Forum by filling untenable complaint. The remaining allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false.  The complaint therefore may be dismissed with exemplary costs.            

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-8 on behalf of the complainant and Ex.B-1 to B-4 on behalf of the opposite parties were marked.    

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

          1.       Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service?

          2.       Whether the complainant is entitled for return of amount

                    together with interest in the alternative?  

          3.       Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so

                    to what amount?

          4.       To what relief? 

6.      Admitted facts in this case are these:

          1)      The opposite parties issued pass book & receipts for the amount received. (Exs A-1 to A-5)

          2)      Exchange of notice between the parties (Exs.A-6 & 7).

3)      The opposite parties prepared tentative lay-out. (Ex.A8=B4). 

7.         POINTS: 1 &2: The terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A-2 pass book are binding the complainant as well as the opposite parties.  Clause 16 of Ex.A-2 revealed that duration of the scheme was from 01-01-12 to  on 31-12-12.  It cannot be said that the complainant is not aware of the  terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A-2 pass book.  In  Ex-A2 it was mentioned that the land was located in S.Nos 158/1, 182, 183-A,183-B and 184 of Vankayalapadu village .

8.     It was not mentioned in Ex-A2 that the opposite parties got the approved layout from the concerned local authorities.  The opposite parties in para 4 of its version mentioned the following :

          It is humbly submits that the complainant is the esteemed customer for the opposite party company and at the time of purchasing the said plot, the opposite party has elicited all the facts about the permissions have to be obtained from the Government authorities and also there will be maximum delay for registration of the said plot in his favour.

9.     The opposite parties in para 2 of their reply mentioned the following:

My client humbly submits that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract i.e., Registration of plots as soon as got the permissions from the respective departments i.e., Revenue and as well as VUDA offices.  My client already informed the same situation to your client prior to the purchase of the respective plots and also explained and informed that though installments paid by your client will register the plots only after getting permissions from the respective departments.  Now the matters are pending due to the public crisis and public agitation, no body is coming forward to complete the pending works and due to this there is undue delay in getting the permission.

10.   It is not even the case of the opposite parties  that they got approved layout when they filed version on 27-06-14.  The opposite parties in clause 17 of Ex-A-2 pass book mentioned that they will execute registered sale deed after receiving the entire consideration.  The above contention mentioned in para 4 of the complaint and reply are contrary to clause 17 of Ex.A-2 pass book.  Copy of plan filed by the complainant was not an approved lay out.  It can therefore be inferred that the opposite parties sold plots without approved layout. 

11.   The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant is a defaulter as he  failed to pay development charges @ as demanded  per square yard as those survey numbers by virtue of G.O.dated 21-06-12 came under the purview of VGTMUDA   and the remaining balance of sale  consideration.  The learned counsel for the complainant repelled by contending  that the opposite parties are claiming development charges more than Rs.400/- and failed to receive the remaining balance of consideration though offered. The contention of the opposite parties that they tentatively fixed development charges @ Rs.400/- is amply corroborated by  clause 6 of Ex.A-2 pass book where in it was mentioned the development charges @400/- per square yard approximately and falsified the contention   of the complainant that the opposite parties demanding more than Rs 400/-per square yard as development charges is unjust. The opposite parties neither in their version nor in reply nor in affidavit mentioned the development charges per square yard and the basis for claiming development charges more than Rs400/-. The complainant is therefore justified in not paying development charges and remaining balance of sale consideration.  The opposite parties are not justified in demanding even the balance of sale consideration as they did not get the lay out approved.

12.   In Kiran Real Estates and Constructions, Sitammadhara, Visakhapatnam vs. Nagalla Anand Sai Sudhakar (1999 (2) CPJ 412) it was held that the attempt of the appellant to sell plots without approved lay out by the VUDA amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.   The averments in the version and reply coupled with affidavit leads us to draw an inference that the opposite parties did not obtain approved lay out even by 18/07/14. The above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. We therefore fine that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service.

13.   The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the second opposite party is not personally liable.  Any company has to work through its directors. This Forum is mainly concerned with deficiency in service. The first opposite party company being a juristic person cannot commit acts amounting to deficiency in service. The second opposite party having floated the first opposite party company is therefore in our considered opinion is estopped from contending so. We therefore hold that the second opposite party is also liable to answer the liability of the fist opposite party.

14.    The complainant claimed interest @24% p.a while seeking refund of amount in the alternative. In clause 13 Of Ex-A2 it was mentioned that a defaulter of three installments has to interest @24% p.a. Under those circumstances the complainant claiming interest @ 24% p.a cannot be said as unreasonable. We therefore hold that the opposite parties have to refund Rs 80,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a and answer these points against the opposite parties.  

15. POINT No.3:-          The complainant claimed damages of Rs2,00,000/- for mental pain and suffering. The complainant’s denial to pay development charges   in view of the above conduct of the opposite parties is a circumstance to consider in mitigating damages. As this Forum awarded interest @ 24% p.a considering the amount collected by the opposite parties awarding damages of Rs10,000/-in our consideration will meet ends of justice. We therefore answer this point accordingly.

16. POINT No.4:-   In view of above findings in the result the complaint is partly allowed as detailed infra.

1. The opposite parties are directed to return Rs.80,000/-(Rs eighty  thousand only) together with interest @24% p.a from            15-09-12 (the date on which ops received amount )till payment.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs2,000/-(Rupees two thousands) as costs of the complainant.
4. The opposite parties are directed to comply the above order with in six weeks from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 30^th day of September, 2014.

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:-

PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.