Before The District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 10th day of February, 2004
C.D.No.46/2003
Smt T.Radhika,
W/o. T.Raghurama,
R/o. H.No.62/29-A,
Nagareswara Swamy temple,
Fort,Kurnool . . . Complainant represented by her
Counsel Sri Yedire Srinivaasulu.
-Vs-
Sai Priya Estates,
Rep by its Managing Partner,
A.Kesava Narayana
Present officer at H.No.44/104,
Prakasam Nagar, 3rd Cross, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite party represented by his
Counsel Sri K.Venkatramaiah
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to register the house plot of agreed size in agreed layout situated in Sy.No.124B/1, of Mamidalapadu Grama Panchayat Limits or to pay RS.27,000/- cost of the plot + RS. 4,500/- registration fee with 24% interest, RS.10,000/- towards mental agony, cost of the complaint and such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitle in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant joined as a member on 7.9.1997 with the opposite party scheme running under the name and style of ‘ Sai Priya Township ‘. The complainant purchased a plot under the said scheme, the said scheme was for 60 months payable at RS.450/- per months and size of the plot was 20X60. As per the said scheme a lucky dip will be drawn every month and the lucky member need not pay further installment and there were special dips for every 5 months and the winner will be given special gifts and the said scheme was closed in August 2002.
3. The complainant was prompt in payment of installments and paid all 60 installments, as she was not lucky in dips. Apart from this the complainant also paid RS.4, 500/- towards registration fee for the said plot on 31.3.2001 to get it registered. Even though the scheme was completed by August 2002, and the complainant paying all installments and Registration fee the opposite party did not register the plot in her name. There was no response to the repeated requests and demands from the opposite party, hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dt 27.3.2003 demanding for registration of plot, the said notice was returned with an endorsement as not claimed. Therefore the opposite party in not registering the said plot and not returning the amount paid by the complainant is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant.
4. The complainant in support of her case relies on the following documents Viz., (1) 60 receipts issued by opposite party to the complainant (2) receipt dt 31.3.2001 for RS.4, 500/-paid towards registration fee issued by opposite party to the complainant (3) Blue print regarding the layout of plots of opposite party (4) common legal notice dt 27.3.2003 and (5) Xerox copy of postal receipt bearing No.5046. The complainant also filed her sworn affidavit in-reiteration of her complaint avernments, in support of her case and her documents, hence the above document are marked as Ex A.1 to A.5 for their appreciation in this case.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum of this case the opposite party appeared through its standing counsel, but did not filed valid written version in support of its defence or to rebutt the allegation made in the complaint, but it filed a counter affidavit stating that complainant paid only RS.4, 500/- as registration fee but registration fee and stamps comes to RS.5, 000/-. If the complainant pays the balance RS.500/- and submits photos they are ready to register the plot and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs. The opposite party did not file any documents.
6. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled to :-
7. The complainant alleges that she is entitle to get her plot registered in her name as she paid all the 60 monthly installments of RS.450/- per month, as per the scheme and alleges deficiency of service on part of the opposite party for not registering the plot. The Ex A.1 is a bunch of 60 receipts issued by opposite party to the complainant envisages the payment RS.450/- per month for 60 months by the complainant, the opposite party received the said amount as installments for purchase of plot in their township, Ex A.2 is the receipt issued by opposite party acknowledging receiving of RS.4, 500/- as registration fee on 31.3.2001 from the complainant for registration of the said plot. The Ex A.3 is blue print layout of the plots of opposite party, Ex. A.4 is the office copy of legal notice dt 27.3.2003 caused to the opposite party by the complainant’s advocate calling upon to register the plot in favour of the complainant and cost of notice of RS.500/-and Ex.A.5 is the Xerox postal receipt No. 5046 under which the supra legal notice was sent.
8. From the above indisputable evidence what appears is that the complainant is entitle to the get her plot register in her favour as she paid all the 60 installments sand registration fee also. Thus there being deficiency of service and deficient conduct on part of opposite party for not registering the plot in the name of the complainant, their remains bonafidies and justification in the reliefs sought by the complainant.
9. More over there is no rebutting material placed by the opposite party to the allegations made in the complaint, hence above material is remaining conclusively established and that the complainant is remaining entitle to the claims made.
10. As per Sec 13(2) (a) the opposite party has to file its version denying or disputing the allegations made in the complaint but the opposite party filed its counter affidavit which is not valid and cannot be taken into consideration for appreciation.
11. To sum up, there is no relevant cogent material placed by the opposite party to rebutt the allegations made in the complaint, the opposite party cannot escape its liability to register the plot of the complainant on the closing date of the scheme itself. But as delayed on the part of the opposite party by his doscile conduct there appears every reasonability in the reliefs sought by the complainant.
12. Therefore in the result of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to register the plot in the name of the complainant allotted as per the scheme or pay RS.27, 000/- cost of the plot + RS.4,500/- registration fee with 9% interest per annum from the date of closure of the scheme till realization and RS.1,000/- each towards costs and compensation within a month of the receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall be liable to pay the supra stated amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 10th day of February, 2004.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
