BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.P.V. Nageswara Rao , M.A. LL.M., President(FAC)
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Thursday the 27th day of August, 2009
C.C. 50/08
Between:
P.Ravi Kumar, S/o. P.Subramanyam,
H.No.4-1-43, Main Bazar, Allagadda, Kurnool District.
… Complainant
Versus
1. Sagala Siva Prasad,
H.No.18-525, Ammavarisala Street, Main Road, Proddutur, Kadapa District.
2. S.Suresh Babu, S/o. S.Subbarayudu,
H.No. 18-525 , Ammavarisala Street, Main Road, Proddutur,
Kadapa District.
3. Paluru Nagapullaiah,
H.No.56/967/2, Sitaram Nagar, Kurnool.
….Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. P.Siva Sudharshan , Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri. M. Yella Reddy , Advocate for opposite party No. 1 and 2 and Sri. Y.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for opposite party No. 3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member )
C.C.50/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 , seeking a direction on opposite parties to register the plot infavour of the complainant after receiving the plot amount , to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony , Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant joined the house site plot scheme floated by the opposite parties in the name and style of Sri. Lakshmi Srinivasa Housing Scheme , Proddutur at Tirupati near Tirupati Renigunta Road, for plot size 20 x 54 and each member as to pay Rs.400/- per month for 30 months and the complainant booked on plot in his name on 26-01-1985 with membership No. 63. The complainant paid 27 installments and there on the opposite parties closed the scheme and did not collect the remaining three installments . The complainant there on requested the opposite parties to collect the remaining installments and register the plot in his favour. But there was no response from the opposite parties and being vexed got issued legal notice dated 13-04-2007 and to this notice also there was no reply. Hence the complainant resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) printed broucher of Sri Laxmi Srinivasa Housing
Scheme Products, (2) A bunch of 21 payment receipts issued by Sri Laxmi Srinivasa Company for A.No. 63 in favour of complainant , (3) office copy of notice dated 20-07-2006 of complainant to OP.No.1 along with postal receipt , (4) office copy of notice dated 20-07-2006 of complainant to OP.No. 3 along with postal receipt, (5) office copy of notice dated 20-07-2006 of OP.No. 2 along with postal receipt , (6) office copy of notice dated 29-07-2006 along with postal receipt to opposite party No. 2 , (7) office copy of notice dated 29-07-2006 of complainant to OP.No. 1 , (8) office copy of letter dated 20-02-2006 of complainant addressed to Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah , (9) office copy of legal notice dated 13-04-2007 addressed to OP’s 1 to 3 along with 3 postal acknowledgements , (10) Xerox copy of sale deed , (11) Xerox copy of lay out plan , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and III party affidavit of P. Subramanyam and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A11 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant , the opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared through their counsels and contested the case . The opposite party No. 1 & 3 filed separate written versions and opposite party No. 2 adopted the written version of opposite party No. 1.
5. The written version of opposite party No. 1 denies the complaint as not maintainable either in the law or on facts and denies that the opposite party No. 1 to 3 floated the Housing Scheme for sale of house plots at Tirupathi and also denied the collecting of 27 installments from the complainant towards house plot scheme. It further alleges that the complainant paid 27 installments amount to Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa and Company , Proddutur and the scheme is floated in the name of Sri Lakhsmi Srinivasa Housing Scheme , Proddutur at Tirupathi and the complainant is not clear as how the collection centre and housing scheme are linked. It also submits that the legal notice dated 13-04-2007 is not replied as this opposite party No.2 is not concerned with the allegations made there in and the complainant and opposite party No.3 are closely related and to harass the opposite parties 1 and 2 the complaint is filed and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint.
6. The written version of opposite party No. 3 denies the complaint as not maintainable and submits that the opposite party No. 3 is not an agent or partner of the alleged housing scheme run by opposite parties 1 and 2 or collection centre Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa & Company and also submits that he did not collect Rs.400/- from the complainant for 27 installments on behalf of the firm. It further submits that the transaction relates to more than 23 years back i.e, on 26-01-1985 and this compliant is barred by limitation. As per the complaint the scheme relates to Tirupathi, Chittor District and the receipts relates to Proddutur , Kadapa District and the complaint is filed in Kurnool Forum. Hence the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
7. In support of their case the opposite parties did not file any documents and relied on the sworn affidavit of opposite parties 1 and 3 in reiteration of its written version averments and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled to :-
9. It is the simple case of the complainant that he joined as a member in the House plot scheme floated by opposite parties 1 to 3 and booked a plot on 20-01-1985. The scheme was for 30 months and every month installment amount is Rs.400/- . The complainant alleges that he joined the scheme seeing the broacher in Ex.A1 and paid 27 installments vide Ex.A2 and there after the opposite parties 1 to 3 evaded to receive the remaining three installments and to register the plot in favour of the complainant. On the other hand the opposite parties 1 and 2 submit that they are not concerned with the alleged housing scheme , Sri Lakshmi Srinivas Housing Scheme joined by the complainant and the payment of Rs.400/- for 27 months are not received by them vide Ex.A2. The Ex.A2 are the 27 receipts issued by Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa & Company on various dates for Rs.400/- and the said receipts are issued by Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa & Company and the complainant alleges that he paid said amount to purchase house plot scheme in Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Hosuing Scheme , the complainant here failed place link between cash collecting centre and Housing Scheme . Hence from the above what appears is that the installment amounts paid by the complainant are not to Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Housing Scheme . Hence as the complainant failed to prove that the installment amount are paid to the housing scheme , hence he cannot claim registration of plot in Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Housing Scheme .
10. The other contention of the complainant is that he paid 27 installments of Rs.400/- to opposite party No. 3 who is the agent of opposite party No. 1 and 2 , but on the other hand the opposite party No. 3 submits that he is not agent nor partner of opposite parties 1 and 2 and further submitted that he did not received the said installment amount from the complainant and he is no where concerned to the said housing scheme. Inspite of denial by opposite party No. 3 the complainant did not place any material to prove that opposite party No. 3 received the installment amount. Therefore it cannot be said that opposite party No. 3 has received installment amount from the complainant.
11. The complainant in his complaint averments submitted that the opposite parties 1 to 3 floated the said housing scheme. On the other hand the opposite parties 1to 3 denied the said contention. The complainant also failed to place any such material on record to show that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are the person who floated the said housing scheme and they are partners in the said housing scheme. Hence in the absence of any such material it cannot be said that opposite parties 1 to 3 floated said the housing scheme.
12. To sum up the complainant utterly failed to prove his case and hence the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her ,corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 27th day of August, 2009.
LAYD MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC) MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Printed broucher of Sri Laxmi Srinivasa Housing
Scheme Products.
Ex.A2. A bunch of 21 payment receipts issued by Sri
Laxmi Srinivasa Company for A.No. 63 in favour of
complainant .
Ex.A3. Office copy of notice dated 20-07-2006 of complainant
to OP.No. 1 along with postal receipt.
Ex.A4. Office copy of notice dated 20-07-2006 of complainant
to OP.No. 3 along with postal receipt.
Ex.A5. Office copy of notice dated 20-07-2006 of OP.No.2 along
with postal receipt.
Ex.A6. Office copy of notice dated 29-07-2006 along with postal
receipt to OP.No. 2.
Ex.A7. Office copy of notice dated 29-07-2006 of complainant to
OP.No. 1.
Ex.A8. Office copy of letter dated 20-02-2006 of complainant
addressed to Superintendent of Police , cuddapah.
Ex.A9. Office copy of legal notice dated 13-04-2007 addressed
to OP’s 1 to 3 along with 3 postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A10. Xerox copy of sale deed.
Ex.A11. Xerox copy of lay out plan.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC) MALE MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
