BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DIPSUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD
F.A.No.726/2007 against C.C.No.46/2006, Dist. Forum-II,Krishna at Vijayawada.
Between:
Siva Priya Estate Traders,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
Sri K.Viswanadham, S/o.Satyanarayana,
Hindu, aged 55 years,
Presently residing Sri Jaya Towers,
3rd floor , opp.Baroda Bank Road,
Katta Subba Rao Thota ,Eluru, W.G.Dt. ….Appellant/
Opp.party no.1
And
1.Padavala Pavani,
W/o.P.Venu Gopala Rao,
D/o.Deenamsetti Nageswara Rao,
Hindu, aged 35 years, House wife,
& Properties, Vasantavada Village,
Bapulapadu Mandalam, Krishna Dist.
2. Deenamsetti Nageswara Rao,
S/o.Govindaiah, Hindu , aged about
57 years , Properties, R/o.D.No.41-1/10-43,
Nehru Nagar, Krishna Lanka,
Vijayawada – 13. … Respondents/
Complainants
3. Siva Priya Estate Traders,
Rep. by its Partner ,Sri Guntaka,
Venu Gopala Reddy, S/o.Nagi Reddy,
Hindu, aged 50 years, Properties,
Present address. Near Gali Gopuram,
Talaprolu-village , Ungutoru Mandal,
Krishna District . …Respondent/
Opp.party no.2
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Vijaya Babu
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.CH.Raghu Ram-R1 & R2
M/s.G.Vivenkanand-R3
CORAM:SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND HON,BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.46/2006 on the file of District Forum-II, Krishna at Vijayawada. , opposite party no.1 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant first complainant is the daughter of the second complainant and took membership for the first complainant under the scheme floated by the opposite parties. The area where the plot is to be allotted situated in village Survey No.R.S.119/2,119/ 1,138/6,138/5A,138/4, Bapulapadu Grama Panchayat, Bapulapadu Mandal, Hanuma8 Junction. The plot is of 198 sq.yards in measurement and the amount payable is of Rs.46,800/- in 50 instalments. The complainant submits that totally she paid Rs.53,800/- and the opposite parties did not undertake any development and did not provide any infrastructure and also did not convey the plot in favour of the complainant. Hence the complaint seeking direction to opposite parties jointly and severally execute the sale deed for plot admeasuring 198 sq. yards in R.S.Nos.119/2,119/1,138/6,138/4 5A,133/4, Bapulapadu Grama Panchayat, Bapulapadu Mandal, Hanuman Junction. in favour of the first complainant together with compensation and costs.
Opposite party no.1 filed counter stating that they have laid plots with lay out in Bapulapadu Village, Bapulapadu mandalam , Hanuman Junction, Krishna Dist in the year 1996. Opposite party states that the first complainant joined in their scheme in the year 1998 subjecting herself to the terms and conditions of the said scheme, but committed default in payment of monthly instalments. The first complainant paid Rs.22,000/- in 36 instalments i.e. from 22.7.1998 to 7.8.2002. Opposite party denied that he had issued a letter dated 11.3.2004 stating that he will register the plot by 29.3.2004. Opposite party submits that there is specific stipulation that if any member commits default in payment of three successive monthly instalments the membership will be terminated. The first complainant had made last payment on 7.2.2002 and the complaint was filed on 16.3.2006 and hence barred by limitation. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
Opposite party no.2 filed counter stating that he was an employee of opp.party no.1 and used to collect money on behalf of the opposite party no.1. Opposite party stated that he is not a partner opp.party no.1 and he wrote letters to the complainant no.2 under the instructions of opp.party no.1 as an employee. Opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A8 and pleadings put forward allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.54,400/- to the complainant no.1 with interest at 9% p.a. The District Forum has also stated that the complainant is entitled to Rs.1000/- towards costs and that the opposite party no.1 is at liberty to recover any amounts collected with reference to Ex.A3 and A4 by opposite party no.2 but not paid to opposite party no.1.
The facts not in dispute are that the first complainant is a member in opposite party housing scheme and the total amount payable is Rs.46,800/- in 50 monthly instalments and the complainant paid 26 instalments as per Ex.A1 pass book. It is the case of the complainants that they have totally paid Rs.53,800/- . But the first complainant produced receipted issued by the opposite party no.1 for an amount of Rs.54,400/-. The last payment made by the first complainant was on 7.2.2002. Opposite party no.1 states that who ever commits default in payment of monthly instalments for three consecutive months will be terminated from membership. But we observe from the record that no such notice was issued by the opposite party to the complainant terminating her from the membership and they have also not filed any documentary evidence to state that any development or infrastructure has been provided by them. The District Forum has relied on Ex.A2 bunch of receipts issued by opposite party evidencing payment of Rs.54,400/- has allowed the complaint. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/opp.party no.1 that the complainant paid only 26 instalments amounting to Rs.22,600/- is unsustainable. The contention of the appellant/opposite party no.1 that Ex.A2 receipts are issued by the company whereas Ex.A3 and A4 are issued by the collection agent of the appellant company on a fabricated letter head in collusion with the complainant is not proved by any documentary evidence .We also observe from the record that the appellant/opposite party no.1 did not take any steps before the District Forum to send these documents to handwriting expert when their contention is that there was vast difference in the signatures and Ex.A5 letter was not addressed by the company and it was a forged document. To reiterate, in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of their contention, we are of the considered view that the District Forum has rightly relied on Ex.A2 receipts and allowed the complaint.
We also observe that cross appeal F.A.No.639/07 filed by the complainant was dismissed for default.
For the reasons aforementioned this appeal is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is confirmed. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt. 10.9.2009
Pm*
