This case is coming for final hearing on 25-03-2014 in the presence of Sri Ch.Paparao and of Sri C.R.Vasantha Kumar, Advocate for Opposite Party and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                  

                                                                                                       : O R D E R :

                                                     (As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the Complainants is that they believed the version of the opposite party and joined as a member in Sai Vishnu Phase-II at Kothavalasa Village and paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.77,150/- from 26.09.2000 to 18.09.2006 and the opposite party allotted Plot No.569 measuring 220sq.yds of house plot to the Complainants.  The Opposite party also issued 30 receipts from 26.02.2002 to 18.09.2006 regarding payments made by the Complainants and also issued pass book bearing No.1769.  The unregistered Sale Agreement was executed by the opposite party on 09.12.2000.  The Opposite party also issued a Letter of payment schedule on 04.10.2000.  The Complainants stated that after completion of full payment of sale consideration they visited the layout, but they came to know that the said layout was not developed as per norms of VUDA and the Opposite party failed to develop the layout and even today they did not obtained Final L.P from VUDA.  But only with a malafide intention to collect the total sale consideration from the Complainants, opposite party received that amount which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The Complainants roamed around the offices of the Opposite party and demanded to show the Final L.P but the Opposite party requested some time to get L.P., but they failed to do so. After that, the Complainants came to know that the VUDA issued a circular to all the concerned Sub-Registrars of Gopalapatnam not to register the plots without granting the final L.P., without having layout approval plan and other approvals from VUDA. The Opposite party collected huge amounts from the Complainants which clearly shows their deficiency in service.  The Opposite party neither registered the plot nor refund the amount paid by the Complainants and moreover the Opposite party demanded to pay Rs.3,000/- extra per sq.yd for registration of house plot.  Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite party:

1. To register the house plot bearing No.569 in Sai Vishnu Phase-II as per VUDA norms or the opposite party has to refund the amount of Rs.77,150/- along with 24% p.a. interest from the respective date of payments.

2. To pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation besides Rs.25,000/- towards costs.

2.       On the otherhand, the Opposite party filed its counter and denied some of the allegations mentioned in the complaint and admitted about the payment of sale consideration of Rs.77,150/- paid from 26.09.2000 to 18.09.2006 and also issuance of 30 receipts and pass book.  But denied all other allegations and pleaded that the process of development and procedure for obtaining the approval were clearly explained to the Complainants at the time of admission.  The Complainants failed to pay the amount as per the agreement and only with a view to avoid his contractual obligations, filed this false complaint.  The Opposite party stated that the Statutory Authorities imposed stricter conditions for releasing the layout permission and enhanced the charges, fees and layout development fees etc., and payment of such amounts were clearly agreed upon at the time of admission itself, wherein, it was clearly stated that members will have to bear the rates ruling at the time of registration.  After all hard work over the period of time and having accomplished the job, the Opposite party could get the layout approval L.P.no.2/2010 dated 07.01.2010 and hence, as they accomplish all the formalities for sanction of layout within stipulated time and there is no default in payment of installment and deficiency of service on their part.   It is the bounden duty to pay the development charges as per the agreement by the Complainants, but they committed default in making payments, hence, the Opposite party is not liable to return any sought of amount to the defaulters.  Hence this complaint is to be dismissed.

3.       At the time of enquiry, the Complainants filed their affidavit along with documents and Exhibit A1 to A4 are marked.  On the otherhand, the Opposite party filed its counter and evidence affidavit and no documents are marked on behalf of opposite party.  Both the counsels were heard who reiterated their version. 

4.       In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

          Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? If so, can the Complainants is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

5.       The fact that the Complainants were members in Sai Vishnu Phase-II layout which was made by the Opposite party and the Complainants paid an amount of Rs.77,150/- towards total sale consideration of the Plot is not in dispute as per Ex.A1 i.e., receipts in 30 nos.  Ex.A2 is the Pass Book bearing No.1769 issued by the Opposite party in the name of the Complainants by acknowledging the payments made by them.  Ex.A3 is the letter dated 04.10.2000 issued by the Opposite party regarding payment schedule where in it clearly shows the total payment is as Rs.77,150/-.  The Opposite party executed an unregistered Sale Agreement, wherein, the Opposite party agrees to sell and the Complainants agree to purchase Plot No.569 comprising an area of 220sq.yds. 

6.       The version of the Complainants is that after total sale consideration was made by them, they came to know that there was no layout approved plan and necessary permissions from the Competent Authorities.  Such being the case, the Complainants requested the Opposite party either to register the Plot after getting all the approvals or to refund the amount with interest, but there is no positive response from the Opposite party. 

7.       The Opposite party indirectly admitted the non-development of layout by taking a plea that they explained the difficulties in developing the layout and getting necessary permissions from Statutory Authorities, but the Opposite party took a plea in its counter that they get layout approval vide L.P.no.2/2010 on 07.01.2010, but no document was filed by the opposite party regarding layout approved plan.  Moreover, the Opposite party in its counter categorically stated that they are filing photographs showing the development of layout as per the norms of Statutory Authorities for kind perusal of this Forum along with counter, but no documents were filed by the Opposite party either with counter or with its evidence affidavit.

6.       The Opposite party asserted that the Complainants are defaulter as per the terms of the agreement as they failed to pay the development charges and committed default.  Hence, the Opposite party is not liable to refund the amount to the defaulters under Defaulters clause and it has right to forfeit the entire amount paid. Though in Ex.A4 i.e., Sale Agreement shows such a term, in our view, without issuing any prior notice of such forfeiture for the alleged failure to discharge their obligation, the Opposite party has no right to forfeit the amount paid by the Complainants.  Moreover, there is no denial of failure to develop the layout.  The opposite party failed to substantiate its plea regarding the development of layout as mentioned in its counter regarding the L.P.No.2/2010 dated 07.01.2010.  In such circumstances, the Opposite party cannot invoke this particular clause in the agreement regarding the forfeiture of advance amount paid.

7.       The Complainants are seeking refund of amount with 24% p.a. interest from the respective dates of payments, but as rightly contended by the Opposite party, interest claimed by the complainant is on higher side, hence in our view allowing 9% interest from the date of complaint i.e., 27.03.2012 to the Complainants on the amount due will be just and proper.  The interest claimed by the Complainants from respective dates of payments is not reasonable, as they kept silent for nearly 6 years by not filing the complaint within time.  Hence, in our view, allowing interest from the date of complaint i.e., 27.03.2012 is just and reasonable.

8.       The complainants for valid reasons walked out of the scheme inspite of the fact, they invested substantial amounts and thus deprived of having the benefit of owning a house plot, this would cause mental agony and huge financial loss to the complainants, who have to incur huge amount in acquiring alternate plot.  Considering all these circumstances, in our view, the Complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- which would be just and proper. 

9.       Accordingly, this point is answered.

10.     In the result, the Complaint is allowed directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.77,150/- (Rupees seventy seven thousand one hundred and fifty only)with interest at 9% p.a. from 27.03.2012 within three months, failing which to pay the same with 12% interest till the date of payment.  The Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)towards compensation besides costs of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only).

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of April, 2014.

  Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

Member                                                                  President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                            Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainants:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party:

NIL

  Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                               President (FAC)

Member                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                            Visakhapatnam