BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

FA.No.1037/2013 against CC.No.234/2013 District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad

Between:

Dr.M.Balachander (Chairman)

Sri Chandra Farms and Resorts India Ltd,

H.No.25,II floor, Sri Krupa Market,

Opp.Charmas, Malakpet,

Hyderabad – 500 036.

                                                      …Appellant/Opp.Party.

And

Mudam Ramesh, S/o. China Rajaiah,

H.No.1-1-365/9, Near Andhra Café Hotel,

Jswahar Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020, AP.

                  …Respondent/Complainant..

Counsel for the Appellant        :  M/s.V.Gourishankara Rao

Counsel for the Respondent    :  None.  Respondent appeared in person.   

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN .

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Gopalakrishna Tamada, Hon’ble President)

*******   

The opposite party in Consumer Case No.234/2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad is the appellant and this appeal is filed assailing the order dated 13.09.2013 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein was allowed.

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the complaint.

The opposite party is the Chairman of Sri Chandra Farms and Resorts India Ltd and he is doing business in the real estate i.e. dividing plots and selling them to the willing purchasers.  The complainant being attracted by the said advertisement given by the opposite party approached him in the month of May, 2008 for purchase of a plot.  On that, the opposite party initially allotted plot No.162 with an extent of 117 square yards of land for a total consideration of Rs.1,24,000/- and the complainant has paid the monthly instalments regularly only uptill April, 2010.  Later, when the complainant approached the opposite party seeking for registration of the plot, he was informed that the said plot would not be available for registration and therefore, he would allot a new plot if  the complainant pays the balance sale amount.  Thereafter, the complainant was allotted plot No,31 admeasuring 150 square yards for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-, which includes the registration charges. However, the complainant paid only Rs.1,02,500/- intimating the opposite party that he would pay the balance amount a day before the date of registration. After payment of initial instalment, a Pass Book bearing No.347  was issued by the opposite party to the complainant.  By August, 2012, though the complainant had paid a substantial amount of Rs,1,02,500/-, the opposite party has not registered the said plot in favour of the complainant despite the fact that he has approached the opposite party on a number of occasions to get the said plot registered in his favour.  As the opposite party has not come forward to get the sale deed registered in his favour, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad and filed the Consumer Case No.234/2013 (CC.No.234/2013) complaining of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. 

After following the procedure and after hearing both the parties the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad while allowing the complaint partly passed an order on 13.09.2013 directing the opposite party to refund Rs.1,02,500/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 23.08.2012 till 31.03.2013 and with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.04.2013 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.  As per the said order, the opposite party has to pay the said amount of Rs.1,02,500/- to the complainant together with interest   @ 18% per annum from 23.08.2012 till 31.03.2013 and with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.04.2013 till realization to the complainant.  As stated supra, the said order is questioned by the opposite party.

Heard both sides.  The learned counsel for the opposite party, Mr.V.Gourishankara Rao submitted that though the opposite party expressed his willingness to get the plot registered, the complainant has not come forward to get the sale deed registered.  Thus, on his own volition, the said delay has been occurred and there are no latches in so far as the opposite party is concerned.  It is his further submission that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as he was willing to get the plot registered in favour of the complainant, and even now he is ready to get the plot registered in favour of the complainant.  The complainant, who is present before this Commission, has reiterated what is stated in his complaint. He expressed his willingness in unequivocal terms stating that he is not ready to get any plot registered in his favour.  He submits that a substantial amount of Rs.1,02,500/- towards sale consideration has been paid to the opposite party and that the District Forum has considered all these aspects while allowing the complaint.

From a perusal of the material on record and also submissions made by the both sides, this Commission is of the view that the District Forum has rightly observed that the complainant is entitled to get back the amount that has been paid with interest.  The complainant is an employee working in a Private Limited Company at Hyderabad, and with a fond dream to build a house, he opted the said plot and parted with huge amount like Rs.1,02,500/-.  It shall be remembered that the complainant is a small employee drawing salary of only Rs.15,000/- per month and for a man like him an amount of Rs.1,02,500/- can definitely be said to be so much.  When the opposite party has advertised stating that the plot will be made ready and possession also will be delivered, he is adhered to the terms and conditions.  But from a perusal of the record. it is clear that the opposite party did not stick on to the said terms and conditions.  When the builder did not come forward to get the plot registered and when they deviate the terms and conditions, it is always left open to the people like the complainant to ask for refund of the amount that has already been paid by him to the opposite party.  In these circumstances, this Commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount that has been paid him towards sale consideration and the District Forum has rightly observed that the complainant is entitled to get back the amount. 

At this juncture, Sri V.Gourishankara Rao, the learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant herein has submitted that awarding of interest @ 18% per annum is on the higher side and he requested this Commission to reduce the same.  However, this Commission is not in favour of the said submission.  Interest @ 18% per annum in these days cannot be said to be on the higher side.  The District Forum has taken that particular fact also into consideration.  The District Forum  has awarded interest @18% per annum only from the date of the last payment upto the date of filing of the complaint before the said Forum.  The District Forum has taken care in all aspects.  From the date of order, it awarded interest only @ 9% per annum. 

In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the said order and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.  No costs.                                                      

___________________________

                                                                               (PRESIDENT)

___________________________

                                                                                (MEMBER)

                                                                                DATE:20.01.2014.

Vvr.