A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
FA 766/2006 against C.C.No.434/2005 on the file of the District Forum I, Hyderabad.
Between:
Prof. V.Malleswara Rao, 64years,
S/o Late Sri V. Narasinga Rao
R/o. 1-9-291/7/A, Opp. Post Office,
Vidyanagar, Hyderabad – 500 044. … Appellant/Complainant
And
Narne Estates (P) Ltd,
Being represented by its President
Col (Rtd). N.Ranga Rao,
S/o. Late Sri N.V.Naidu,
No.1, Gun Roack Enclave,
Secunderabad – 500 009. … Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : Dr.A.V.Ramana Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.V.Henery
Coram : Sri Syed Abdullah … Hon’ble Presiding Member
And
Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao … Hon’ble Member
Wednesday, the Thirteenth Day of May, Two thousand Nine
Oral Order : (as per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member)
* * *
This appeal is arising out of the order dated 23.12.2005 passed in CD 434/2005 by the District Forum I, Hyderabad, in which, while allowing the complaint the opposite party was directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Being not satisfied with the relief granted by the District Forum, the appellant/complainant filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erred in passing the order to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a from 17.01.2003 till the date of settlement and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony suffered with litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.
The facts as stated in the complaint are that having been attracted by the advertisement and brochures issued by the opposite party, the complainant enrolled himself as a Member in the scheme of house plots in East City floated by the opposite party by paying Rs.200/- in the year 1996. The opposite party promise to execute sale deed and registered the documents by the end of 2002. A total amount of Rs.33,500/- was paid by August, 1999 on completion of the ground work, thereafter no development could be visualized. And thereafter, dis-satisfied with the work, since the layout plan was also not ready by then and as there is no hope that the plot will be registered, he stopped paying further installments and requested the second opposite party to refund back the amount paid by them for which the opposite party sent a letter dated 05.02.2000 that the plot allotted to him would be kept for sale and on receipt of the sale proceeds the same would be returned. While so, in November, 2002,executives of the opposite party approached the complainant with an offer that they are ready to construct the plot in Golden Heights in Phase II assuring him that on payment of Rs.16,500/- in two or three installments, the said plot would be transferred which offer will be kept open till the end of April, 2003. Accordingly, the complainant paid installments. Later when the statement of account on 3.1.2003 was issued interest charges of Rs. 6,919/- was deducted. When approached, the Vice President, he waived the interest to the extend of Rs. 3,919/-. The Original allotted plot was transferred to Golden Heights Phase II assuring that no arrangement will be made in the said venture. The complainant’s wife also booked another plot in April, 2003. The bank authorities raised objection unless layout of the plot is filed sanction cannot be made. In March, 2004, the General Manager, Customer Service of the opposite party informed that East City Extension Plot No. G3 is not ready for construction and if agreeable an alternative available plot in Sector V of East City will be registered without any further payments, for which the complainant’s wife agreed and the advance paid for Golden Heights Phase II plot no. 92 for which they sent their willingness for transfer accordingly. Before the formalities could be completed for its closure, the General Manager ignoring the earlier letter begun to claim that the advance paid for the Golden Heights II plot No. 92 will be not be transfer in full to the East City Sector V plot but a some of amount Rs.10,500/- will be deducted towards sponsors charges, service charges etc., On the said letter, the complainant completely lost confidence on the opposite parties and their assurances, hence notice was sent to the opposite parties for estimating the development charges of Rs. 175/- per square yard, i.e., 43, 750/- per plot. Even then, the development work was not completed. So the complainant demanded for return of money. Thus, the act or omission amounts to deficiency in service.
The opposite party in its version denied the allegations except to the extend booking of the plot and initially payment of Rs. 5,200/- along with costs of the plot at Rs.50,000/- excluding development charges of Rs.50,000/- by installments up to the end of August, 99. Further stated that the request of the complainant to pay the difference of the amount on the ground that his children wanted the parents to return to USA to stay for some time. So the plot was kept for re sale giving intimation on 5.2.2000. Even by then, the opposite party was not paid the total cost of the plot. The complainant had paid part of the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- through cheque dated 14.11.2002. Till now neither the balance cost of the plot nor the development charges was paid, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged. During the enquiry, the complainant along with evidence affidavit filed. Ex. A1 to A20 and no documents were filed on the side of the opposite party.
After considering the evidence and pros and cons put forth by the respective parties and on the admission that the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.50,000/- since the lay out was not approved within the time the complainant was introduced to go for another plot in Golden Heights, for which, the opposite party has demanded more money towards cost of the plot an apart from it the complainant’s wife had also purchased another plot and that the opposite party was not ready to hand over the said plot by taking up construction immediately, the complainant has requested to return the amounts and the claim for the relief sought for by the complainant was found to be very high and after taking all the facts into consideration the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 50,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
As seen from the contentions, the grievance of the appellant/complainant is that the District Forum while ordering refund of Rs.50,000/- had failed to award interest thereon though the amount was retained by the opposite party right from 1996 and that too when the amounts was paid after lapse of a decade. It is also contended that a complaint was filed by his wife which was decided in District Forum II, Hyderabad, in which interest was awarded on the deposit amount. So it is prayed to award interest on the amount due.
After going through the correspondence made in between the complainant and the opposite parties, i.e., Ex. A1 to A17 along with connected documents, such as, agreement of sale, brochure etc, we hold that there was delay on the party of the opposite party in completing their venture and due to some legal constraints, the venture could not be completed within the stipulated period and all the while the amounts was kept with them. Further, when a member with fond hope joined in the scheme to have a house plot and when once he was disappointed in not getting the same as promised he will definitely will have suffering and mental agony. As the money value had decreased by raising of the cost of the house plot all the while form 1996 to 2006, it is just and proper to award interest on the amount that was due and payable to the complainant by way of refund i.e., a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.
In the result, the order of the District Forum in modified to the extend of awarding interest at 12 % p.a. on a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the respective dates of payment till realization and the other relief’s confirmed. In the circumstances of the case, each party to bear their own costs.
PRESINDG MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt: 13-05-2009
