This case is coming for final hearing on 05.12.2014 in the presence of Sri Sontyana Mohana Rao Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri Badarinath and Sri Madanmohan Advocates for Opposite Parties 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 complainant submits that it is a reputed organization having registered as Society bearing No.504/2006 and it is being actively rendering services to the consumers at large by providing education and resolving the consumers problems amicably.  The defacto complainant Sri V.N.Rao has given a complaint to this complainant on 06.05.2012 to tackle with the problems of the defacto complainant with the opposite party. The defacto complainant was lured and duped with the advertisement and the provocating advertisements in T.V. by eminent Cine Director Sri K.Viswanadh and famous singer Sri Bala Subrahmanyam and booked a plot on 07.05.2010 by paying Rs.35,300/- under Receipt No.13323 and Rs.90,600/- on 10.05.2010 under receipt No.13384 and on 25.05.2010 an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid under Receipt No.13695 thus he paid Rs.7,25,000/- as on 25.05.2012.  The Opposite party also issued Plot allotment letter dated 07.06.2010 to the defacto complainant admitting the payment made by him for purchase of Plot No.294 admeasuring 777.78sq.yds and also asked the defacto complainant to pay the remaining amount of Rs.18,74,922/- under different stages.  After that the defacto complainant came to know that there is no layout in Suvarna Kuteer Phase-I at Visakhapatnam and the land is as it is without any development and the opposite party failed to produce any document pertaining to the said layout when demanded by the defacto complainant.  Then, the complainant issued a notice to the opposite party on 25.05.2012 and the same was received by the complainant and the complainant also met personally the opposite party along with the defacto complainant but the opposite party refused to refund the promised plot and also refused to refund the amount and stating that an alternative plot in another layout can only be given and aggrieved by such statement the complainant has come out and again requested the opposite party but in vain.  These acts of the opposite party clearly shows deficiency in service on its part, by not getting approval of L.P and the opposite party failed to obtain L.P. in a month or two as promised by them and even after completion of two years, the opposite party did not made any effort to get approval of the layout from VUDA and hence, the opposite party should not offer plots for sale until the plots are approved and L.P. was obtained from VUDA.  Hence the opposite party has to refund the amount with interest but it failed to do so. Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite party;

a)      Either to obtain the layout and register the Plot No.294 in Suvarna    Kuteer Phase-I within a stipulated period of three months or in      alternative to order refund the amount of Rs.7,25,000/- with 24% interest from the respective dates;

b)      to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.15,000/-.

2.       On the other hand, the opposite party filed its counter and denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and pleaded that Sri V.N.Rao i.e., defacto complainant was not made as a party to this proceedings, hence, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complainant has to file the civil suit.  There is no evidence regarding the adoption of unfair trade practice by the opposite party or also regarding the deficiency in service on its part.  No evidence or documents were filed by the complainant to support the allegations of mental agony and other monetary loss occurred.  The complainant has not traced any authorization to file the case on behalf of Mr.V.N.Rao nor has filed any document of authorization, hence the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.  The defacto complainant Mr.V.N.Rao verified the plot and the relevant documents, and only after satisfied submitted the application to the opposite party by accepting the terms and conditions mentioned therein, wherein it clearly mentioned that the approval of the said layout is under process and to secure the approval and in case the approval is not obtained then, the opposite party agreed to provide an alternate plot to the applicant in another approved layout of the similar nature of the opposite party.  The applicant has agreed to this condition and paid money.  Unfortunately, due to the unexpected legal complications, the layout approval has not so far obtained and the opposite party informed all the applicants including V.N.Rao to accept a similar plot in other nearby approved layouts of the opposite party by paying the difference cost.  Most of the applicants opted for the plots in other layouts and paid the difference cost. The applicant Mr.V.N.Rao in breach of terms with an intention to cause wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the opposite party. The opposite party stated that it has no objection to allot and register the plot almost similar type of flat to Mr.V.N.Rao in the adjacent other layouts of the opposite party.  The alternate plea of the complainant regarding the refund of the fee cannot claim by Mr.V.N.Rao as he is not agreed to claim refund of amount while submitting his application.  Hence, this alternative prayer is not maintainable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence this complaint is to be dismissed.

3.       At the time of enquiry the complainant filed his evidence affidavit along with documents which are marked as Exhibit A1 to Ex.A7.  On the other hand, the opposite party filed its counter and evidence affidavit.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite party. No written arguments for both the parties.  Heard the complainant’s counsel who reiterated his version.  The counsel of opposite party represented treated it heard.

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 complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

5.       As per Exhibit A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 the receipts issued by the opposite party acknowledging the payments made by the defacto complainant from 07.05.2010 to 25.05.2010 for an amount of Rs.7,25,900/- against Plot No.294 is not in dispute.  Ex.A4 is the Plot allotment letter issued by the opposite party to defacto complainant on 07.06.2010 regarding the payment of balance amount of Rs.18,74,922/- wherein, the opposite party acknowledged payment of Rs.7,25,000/- made  by the complainant against the plot No.294 admeasuring 777.78sq.yds.  Ex.A.5 is the letter issued by the defacto complainant to the complainant regarding the facts of the case and also requested what to do to get the relief as it is a Consumer National Society.  Ex.A6 is the registered Notice issued by the complainant who is President of Consumer Education and Service Society, Parawada to the opposite party on 25.05.2012 mentioned that to allot Plot No.294 after receiving the balance amount as the Opposite party refused to allot that Plot, failing which the consumer complaint will be filed.  Ex.A7 is the copy of Certificate of Registration of Societies under A.P. Societies Registration Act 2001. 

6.       The version of the complainant is that the defacto complainant approached the complainant to tackle the problems as it is a registered society to do consumer services and the defacto complainant paid the amount of Rs.7,25,000/- which was admitted by the opposite party but failed to register the plot after receiving the balance sale consideration.  More over, the opposite party refused to allot the plot which was promised by them at the time of taking amount.  The opposite party in its counter admitted that because of some reasons, the layout approval has not obtained, but its plea is that they offered another plot to the defacto complainant but the defacto complainant not come forward to get the registration after paying the difference amount.  More over, its plea is that the defacto complainant knows the terms and conditions wherein, he admitted that the approval of the layout is under process and if they failed to obtain the approval, the opposite party allot another approved plot of the similar nature to the complainant, but there is no term regarding the refund of amount paid to the defacto complainant.  But the opposite party not filed any document to know the terms and conditions of the application as per its plea.  Hence, we are of the view that the complainant stopped making payments because, in later stage he came to know there was no LP or BLP obtained by the opposite party from necessary authorities. 

7.       The plea of the opposite party regarding the maintainability is that the complainant is not included the defacto complainant as party, but Section-2(1)(d)  clearly shows that any consumer organization can file the complaint on behalf of the consumer regarding redressal.

          Section-2(1)(b) reads as follows:

Complaint means—

i)       a consumer or

ii)       any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force or

iii)      the Central Government or any State Government, who or which makes a complaint

iv)      one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest.

Hence, the complaint is maintainable.

8.       Thus the opposite party failed to substantiate its plea and Ex.A1 to A4

clearly shows the payment made by defacto complainant and more over no reply was given by opposite party for the correspondences made by the complainant.  That too, the opposite party themselves admitted about non development of layout, which clearly proves its deficiency in service.  Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.7,25,000/- to defacto complainant with 9% interest p.a. within three months which would be just and proper. 

9.       Because of the acts of the opposite party, the defacto complainant deprived of owning a house site even after huge amount of Rs.7,25,000/- paid in the year 2010.  He has to incur huge amount to secure an alternate house site now-a-days, which would cause financial hardship to defacto complainant.  Hence to compensate it allowing Rs.10,000/- towards compensation is justified. 

          Accordingly, this point is answered.

10.     In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.7,25,000/- to the defacto complainant within three months with 9% interest per annum from 25.05.2010, failing which to pay the same with 12% interest till the date of realization.  The Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation besides costs  of Rs.2,000/-.

  Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 19^th day of December, 2014.

      Sd/-                                                                                                  Sd/-

Member                                                                 President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I 

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party:

Member                                                                  President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//