Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/13/10

T. Jayamma W/o T. Ram Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nakka Chennaiah S/o not known and another. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri MCG

24 Apr 2014

ORDER

                                                                                                        O R D E R

 

 (Smt. D. Nirmala, President (FAC))

 

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to show the plot or to pay costs of the plot an amount of Rs.96,300/- after receiving due installments, and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, and also to pay Rs.10,000/- compensation for causing mental agony besides Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The OP-2 started real estate business throughout India through his agents in the name and style PACL India Ltd.  The OP.No.1 started office at Kurnool District and doing business also at Mahabubnagar through agents. The OP.No.1 stated about the features of their ventures to the complainant. The extent of plot is 1250 Sq. yards and the cost of the plot is Rs.62,500/-. Every member has to pay six installments in six years @ 10,420/- per year. The complainant’s husband late T. Ramreddy believe the words of OPs., joined as a member on 22-5-2012 by paying Rs.10,420/- through OP.No.1. The OP.No.2 gave a registration No.U243518737 dated   22-05-2012 under mode of payment IPP. The scheme period is commenced on 22-05-2012 and would be expired on 22-05-2018 and the expected value of plot for Rs.96,300/-. The complainant further stated that her husband T. Ramreddy expired due to heart-attack on 5-9-2012 and informed the same to OP.No.2 through OP.No.1 and requested to show the plot and registered the plot or to pay cost of the plot but the OPs., till today neither registered the plot nor gave cost of the plot and they postponed the matter on one pretext or the other.  Due to the acts of the OPs., the complainant suffered a lot financially and mentally, hence the present complaint is filed for the above said relief.

3. The OP.No.1 though served with notice, called absent. No representation throughout proceedings.

4. The OP.No.2 filed counter denied the allegations leveled against with this OP and stated that their exist a contractual relationship between the parties according to which there is specific provision provided per redressal of grievance regarding breach of terms and conditions of the agreement as per terms of the agreement if there is any dispute or difference whatsoever arising between the parties the same shall be referred to arbitration and shall be settled in accordance with arbitration and conciliation Act 1996, hence this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. This OP further stated that an agreement was executed between complainant’s husband and this OP for allotment of land and the consideration was to be paid @ Rs.10,420/- yearly for a period 6 years starting from 22-5-2012 to 25-5-2018 for which he was issued a unit registration No.U243518737, but the complainant’s husband deposited only one installment with this OP. Further stated that as per the terms and conditions, the complainant would be allotted land after receipt of 50% of the consideration amount of the plot but in this case the complainant has deposited only one installment. If the unit holder dies during the plan his/her nominee or legal heir or successor can continue the payment on furnishing specific written request. If the nominee of the unit holder is unable to continue the payment plan due to any reason he/she could apply for refund of the amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. But in the present case, the nominee neither applied to continue with the scheme nor applied for withdrawal of the same, hence the complaint against this OP became premature and same is liable to be dismissed. This OP further stated that in the present case the complainant’s allegations are against the OP.No.1 in his individual capacity, if OP.1 has committed any wrong with the complainant this OP cannot be held responsible. Therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

5. During enquiry, the complainant in support of her claim filed her affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. The OP-2 also filed affidavit of one Y.V. Krishna Babu S/o Y.V. Acharyulu, Branch Manager of OP-2 as evidence and got marked Ex.B-1 document.    

6.  The points for determination are:-  

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant?

    (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought by her?

    (iii)  To what effect?

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that the OP.No.2 started real estate business throughout India through agents i.e., in the name and style PACL India Limited. The OP started office at Kurnool district and business started at Mahaubnagar district also through agents. The terms and conditions of the scheme is that the extent of the plot is 1250 Sq. yards. The costs of the plot is Rs.62,500/- every member has to pay 6 installments. The scheme period is from 22-5-2012 to  22-6-2018. She further contended that her husband named T. Ram Reddy joined in the scheme of OPs., by paying an amount of Rs.10,420/- through OP.No.1 the OP.No.2 issued a registration No.U243518737 dated 22-5-2012. The complainant further contended that her husband expired due to heart attack on 5-9-2012. The information about the death of her husband was given to the O.P.No.2 through the OP.No.1 and requested to show the plot or refund the cost of the plot.  But the OPs., did not show the plot nor refund of the plot cost till today. To support her contention the complainant filed the documents Ex.A-1 Bond and Ex.A-2 death certificate. On the other hand the learned standing counsel for the OP-2 contended that the complainant’s husband joined in the scheme on  22-5-2012 and paid only one installment.  He further contended that land will be allotted to the unit holder, only after receipt of 50% of the consideration amount of the plot. As per terms of agreement if the unit holder dies, his nominee can continue the scheme plan on furnishing specific written request to this OP.  But the case on hand, the nominee of unit holder unable to take the steps either to continue the payment of scheme plan or she could apply for the refund of the amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. To substantiate his contention this OP filed Ex.B-1 the original unsigned bond of the either of the parties. In the absence of the same the contention of learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 is not tenable. Furthermore the complainant filed a xerox copy of the Bond and the said bond is not reveals anything except unit registration number and payment of one installment. As far as concerned with the location of the plot either in Mahabubnagar or Kurnool is silent and the said facts are neither reveals in her pleadings nor her affidavit evidence even in Exs.A-1 and B-1 documents. In such circumstances the complainant is entitled only one installment amount paid by her husband can be refunded.

8. The Ex.A-1 is issued by OP-2 after receipt of one installment amount of Rs.10,420/- through OP-1. Hence the act of OP-1 in transaction between husband of complainant and OP-2 is nothing but an Agent.  Therefore, we are of the view that the OP-2 is only liable to refund the said installment amount to the complainant.

9. The reasons shown supra and facts born out from records, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled only one installment amount of Rs.10,420/- (towards installment paid by her husband)  with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint and Rs.500/- towards the cost of the present proceedings.

10. Point No.3:- In the result:-

          1) The complaint is partly allowed and directing the OP.No.2 to refund one installment amount of Rs.10,420/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint to till realization to the complainant and cost of  Rs.500/- within one month from the date of order.

          2) The complaint is dismissed against OP-1 without costs. 

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of April, 2014.   

                 I agree                                                                                                                

 

                   -Sd-                                                                                                                    -Sd-

               MEMBER                                                                                                     PRESIDENT (FAC)