Date of Filing : 07/05/2010.
Date of Order :15/01/2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-III, HYDERABAD
Present
SRI Y.CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY, M.A., L.L.M., PRESIDENT
SRI D.MAHESH KUMAR, B.Com., B.L., MEMBER
Wednesday, the 15th Day of January’ 2014
CC.No.320 of 2013
Between:
V.Sai Krishna Vishnu,
S/o V.V.Krishna Roa,
Aged About 33 years,
Occ.:Pvt. Employee,
R/o H.No.10-148/28, Sainagar,
Balanagar, R.R.Dstrict. …….Complainant
AND
R.K.Township Promoters (P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Sri M.M.Kondaiah,
O/o 8-3-319/11, 3rd Floor Doyen Chambers,
Beside Sarathi Studio,
Ameepet, Hyderabad. …….Opp. Party.
Counsel for the Complainant : T.Ram Mohan Rao, Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite Party : Called Absent.
ORDER
(PER HON’BLE SRI Y.CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY, M.A., L.L.M., PRESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)
1. This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying this Forum to direct the Opposite Party to refund Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective dates of payments till the date of realization, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and to pay costs of Rs.30,000/-.
2. The averments of the Complaint in brief are as follows:-
It is respectfully submitted that the Opposite Party is a Private Limited Company, engaging in the business of real estate. The Opposite Party issued wide publicity through press and colorful broachers informing the general public that it is a Registered Company in the Real Estates business and that they would develop a venture under the name & style of “R.K.Diamond City” at Bangalore Highway, Kothur-X-Road, HEL Nagar, Railway Station, Shamshabad. The Opposite Party has also represented that the project will be developed with HUDA norms and to be approved by Directorate of Town and Country planning, barbed wire fencing for total project, Block top roads, Underground water lines & overhead water tank, Underground Drainage System, parks with landscaping and Electricity lines with butterfly lighting and Avenue Plantation etc. Being induced by the representation made by the opposite party, the Complainant intends to purchase a plot bearing No.154 in R.K.Diamond City floated by the Opposite Party. The cost of the said plot was fixed at Rs.4,50,000/-. The Complainant paid Rs.500/- by way of cash vide receipt No.4611, dated 05/03/2006 towards admission fee and paid Rs.3,25,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- by way of cash vide receipts bearing No.4616, dated 06/03/2006, 4612, dated 06/03/2006 respectively towards the full cost of the plot including developments. Though the Opposite Party has received the entire cost of the plot, failed to produce the final approved layout of HMDA, and approval from the DTCP. The Opposite Party also failed to produce the title documents and link documents to prove that they are having the proper approval for the same. When the Complainant asked for the production of the said documents, the Opposite Party has stated that the Complainant has purchased the plot on out rate basis, whereas the Opposite Party have floated the venture with easy installments purchase scheme which is for period of 50 months and that the scheme period would be till 04/05/2010 and the opposite party have assured the Complainant that after completion of the scheme period they would provide every document for verification of the complainant and also assured that they will develop the entire venture in all respects by September 2010. With the
said fond hope the Complainant waited till that period and inspite of the said period, the Opposite Party has not evinced any interest to furnish the said documents. Further there are no developments on the site as represented by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has visited the office of the Opposite Party several times and requested to register the plot after completion of the developments and after furnishing all the documents but the Opposite Party postponed the registration of the plot on one pretext or the other and demanded further amount. Being vexed with indifferent attitude of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has lost his confidence upon the venture of the Opposite Party. The Complainant enquired about the situation and the enquiries of Complainant reveal that the Opposite Party have got permission from HMDA for their proposed project namely R.K.’S Diamond City on 31/05/2008 vide HMDA proceedings of permission sanction order No.68/2B/HMDA/2008, dated 31/05/2008, which is a tentative permission and the final approval is still awaited. Hence, the Complainant has approached their Managing Director Sri M.M.Kondaiah and Managers of various branches located in all over the A.P. with a request to redress his grievance but in vain. As a matter of fact from May 2012 onwards, the Complainant was sick because of jaundice and he could not approach proper Forum, thereafter the father of the Complainant approached A.P.Sate Legal Services Authority on 17/07/2012, made representation to refund the amount paid by him. The A.P.State Legal Services Authority forwarded the said representation to the secretary, District Legal Services Authority, R.R. District for settlement. But the Opposite Party not appeared before the legal services. The Complainant got issued a legal notice, dated 21/04/2013 to the Opposite Party, demanding for refund by the opposite arty on 29/04/2013. The Opposite Party neither come forward to comply the notice nor give reply to the notice. The acts of the Opposite Party clearly constitute the deficiency of service but also amounts to the unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party. The Complainant therefore, prays this Forum to allow the complaint as prayed for.
The Opposite Party did not contest the case. (The Opposite Party did not choose to file written version, evidence affidavit as well as written arguments. Though they were given ample opportunities, at every stage.)
The Complainant filed evidence affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint. Ex.A1 to A9 have been marked on behalf of the Complainant. The Complainant filed written arguments and also adduced oral arguments.
The Points that arise for consideration are:-
(1) Whether there has been deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
(2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount? (3) To what relief?
Point No.1:-
It is the contention of the Complainant that lured by the inducement made by the Opposite Party, he has booked a plot bearing No.154 in R.K.Diamond City floated by the Opposite Party and paid Rs.500/- towards Admission Fee, vide receipt No.4611, dated 05/03/2006; Rs.3,25,000/- vide receipt bearing No.4616, dated 06/03/2006, and Rs.1,25,000/- vide receipt bearing No.4612, dated 06/03/2006 respectively, towards full and final costs of the said plot. Though, the Complainant paid the entire sale consideration of the Plot No.154, the Opposite Party did not choose to execute the Sale Deed and deliver the possession of the plot, so far. It is also on record that the Complainant had visited the office of the Opposite Party several times and requested them to execute the sale deed and deliver the possession of the plot. On enquiry, it came to light that the opposite party has only obtained tentative layout approval from HMDA on 31/05/2008 and final layout approval has not been obtained, as the Complainant entertained a doubt about the genuiness of the project offered by the Opposite Party. He got issued a legal notice under Ex.A7, dated 21/04/2013. The Opposite Party received the said legal notice. The Opposite Party neither executed the sale deed nor given any suitable reply to the Legal Notice. Even in this Forum also, the Opposite Party
does not choose to contest the claim of the Complainant. At every stage, the Opposite Party was given opportunities to contest the case, but the Opposite Party does not choose to avail the liberty given to it.
The above acts of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party.
Point No.2:-
The Complainant paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakh fifty thousand only) on 06/03/2006. The Opposite Party does not choose to execute the sale deed and deliver the possession of the plot. The Complainant was subjected to mental agony, pain and suffering and harassment for all these 8 years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) is awarded as compensation.
Point No.3:-
In view of our findings on point No.1 & 2, we are of the view that the Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakh fifty thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from 06/03/2006 till realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is a fit case to grant compensation also in addition to the interest awarded to the Complainant. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) is awarded towards compensation. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with the following terms:-
(1) The Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakh
fifty thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from 06/03/2006 till
realization.
(2) The Opposite Party shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards
compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs.
The Opposite Party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced by us on this the 15th Day of January 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant:
Ex.A1 – Xerox Copy of Receipt, date 05/03/2006, bearing No.4611.
Ex.A2 – Xerox Copy of Receipt, date 05/03/2006, bearing No.4612.
Ex.A3 – Xerox Copy of Receipt, date 06/03/2006, bearing No.4616.
Ex.A4 – Brochure
Ex.A5 – Copy of Letter, dated 17/07/2012.
Ex.A6 – Copy of Letter, dated 28/12/2012.
Ex.A7 – Copy of Notice, dated 21/04/2013.
Ex.A8 – Postal Receipt, dated 22/04/2013.
Ex.A9 – Postal Acknowledgement.
For Opposite Party:
Nil
PRESIDENT MEMBER
AD
