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

F.A.No.1642 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.37 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM NALGONDA

Between
Mukkara Narasimhudu S/o late Pamuleti
aged about 38 years, Occ: Physiotherapist
R/o Flat No.301, Kalyana Avenue, G.K.Colony
Sainikpuri Post, Secunderabad                      

M/s Narne Estate Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.10, Gun Rock Enclave
Secunderabad.
                                                       

Counsel for the Appellant             

Counsel for the Respondent 

QUORUM:    

&

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
                                              

       The complainant filed the appeal being dissatisfied by the order passed by the District Forum, Nalgonda in C.C.No. 37 of 2007 whereby the opposite party was directed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant for Plot NO.33 (CP) in Block-II, Sector-IV, admeasuring 280 sq.yards in East City Venture situated at Bibinagar in Nalgonda District 

The respondent vide its letter dated 16.10.2006 informed the appellant that the plot allotted to him was not ready for registration due to the technical reasons and instead of that plot they offered to allot another plot in the same sector and for the said purpose they demanded the appellant to pay Rs.14,000/- towards registration charges. 

          Statement of account dated 23.1.1995 indicates payment of Rs.4500/- and the balance due of Rs.33,000/-.    

       The appellant has paid an amount of Rs.1,36,418/- til 19.1.2007. The respondent has charged developmental charges and registration charges and interest on the developmental charges and registration charges. Except stating that the respondent offered alternate plot due to technical and other problems, the problems styled as technical problems have not been explained nor what the other problems are that could be made as ground to offer the alternate plot.                    

       th 

The statement of account dated 28.10.2004 and 10.8.2005 would establish that the appellant has paid Rs.46,200/- towards cost of the plot and Rs.42,000/- towards development charges as also an amount of Rs.7,988/- towards registration charges.   

The contention of the appellant that the respondent had promised to waive a sum of Rs.2,000/- under the head of developmental charges garners       

         and pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the appellant.                                                                                                               

KMK*