BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 20th day of July, 2005
CD No. 66/2005
1. R.Thirupathi Reddy,
S/o. Chinna Seshi Reddy.
Flot NO. 201, Prasant Towers,
R.S. Road, Near Rajavihar Lodge,
Kurnool.
2.Smt R.Varalakshmi Devi,
W/o. Thirupathi Reddy,
Flot NO. 201, Prasant Towers,
R.S. Road,
Near Rajavihar Lodge,
Kurnool. . . . Complainants.
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director,
G.Punna Rao,
M/s G.P.R Housing (Pvt) Ltd,
119, Prakasam Road, Town Club
Circle, Thirupathi.
2.The Branch Manager,
Land Developments and Builders,
M/s G.P.R Housing (Pvt) Ltd,
119, Prakasam Road, Town Club
Circle, Thirupathi. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 13.7.2005 for arguments in the presence of B.Ramasubba Reddy Advocate for complainant, Sri S.Sivaramakrishna Prasad, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
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 parties to Execute Registered Sale Deed in favour of the complainants for the allotted house plots, Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and costs of the case.
2 The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainants are wife and husband. The opposite parties have launched a housing scheme in 1998 under the name and style of “ Sri Padmavathi Gardens “ near Thirupathi, Town on Thirupathi Chittoor Road and laid plots in an area of about 220 acres with 3006 plots of different sizes. Being attracted by the scheme and the broacher released by opposite parties the complainants joined the scheme and booked five plots in first complainant’s name bearing No.s 2077,2079,2079,2080 and 2613 and four plots in second complainant’s name bearing No.s 2075, 2076, 2081 and 2082 in the draft un approved plan shown by opposite parties representative and the scheme was closed by 27.12.2001 and the representative of opposite parties used to collect the installments from the complainants. The representative of opposite parties executed three agreements dt 22.3.1998,12.4.1999 and 26.12.2000 in favour of the complainants. The price of nine plots was Rs. 9,15,243/-, and the complainants paid the entire value by 31.12.2001.
3. Therefore, the complainants requested the opposite parties to execute registered sale deed in their favour and the opposite parties wrote a letter dt 22.12.2003 promising to register the sale deed by February, 2004, even after that there was no response, hence got
issued legal notice dt 8.3.2004 and opposite parties replied dt 30.4.2004 promising to registered the sale deed by May, 2004 and even after that there was no response, the complainants again got issued another legal notice dt 30.10.2004 and the opposite parties replied dt 26.11.2004 promising to register the sale deed by 31.12.2004. Thereafter, the opposite parties are not coming forward to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainants. Hence, there is total deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties in not executing registered sale deed even though total consideration is paid by the complaint to the opposite parties.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties remained absent through out the case proceedings and were made exparte.
5. In support of their case the complainants side relied on the following documents marked as Ex A.1 to A.15, besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant No.1 in reiteration of its complaint avernments.
6. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
7. It is a simple case of the complainants alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties for not executing registered sale deed in their favour even after payment of full consideration by the complainants. The complainant’s side relied on the documentary record in Ex A.1 to A.15.
8. Ex A.1 is the proposed lay out plan of Pudipatla Village and C. Mallavaram Village issued by opposite parties in the name and style of Sri Padmavathi Gardens. The Ex A.2 is agreement executed by opposite parties in favour of the complainant No.1 dt 22.3.1998 aggreing to sell house plots bearing No.s 2077 and 2080 in Sri Padmavathi Gardens along with relevant pass books for plots No. 2077 and 2080 covered under the above said agreement. The Ex A.3 is the agreement dt 22.3.1998 executed by opposite parties in favour of complainant No.1 agreeing to sell house plots bearing No.s 2078 and 2079 in Sri Padmavathi Gardens along with relevant pass books for plots No.s 2078 and 2079 covered under the above said agreement. The Ex A.4 is the agreement dt 26.12.2000 executed by opposite parties in favour of complainant No.1 agreeing to sell house plot No. 2613 in Sri Padmavathi Gardens along with relevant pass book for plot No. 2613 covered under the above said agreement. The Ex A.5 is the agreement dt 22.3.1998 executed by opposite parties in favour of complainant No.2 agreeing to sell house plot No.s 2076 and 2081 in Sri Padmavathi Gardens along with relevant pass book for plots No.s 2076 and 2081 covered under the above said agreement. The Ex A.6 is the agreement dt 12.4.1999 executed by opposite parties in favour of complainant No.2 agreeing to sell house plots No.s 2075 and 2981 in Sri Padmavathi Gardens along with relevant pass book No.s 2075 and 2082 covered under the above said agreement.
9. The Ex A.7 are the bunch of 90 receipts, they envisages an amount of Rs. 4,24,689/- was paid by the complainants to opposite parties towards the price of house plots covered under Ex A.2 and A.3. The Ex A.8 are the bunch of 12 receipts, they envisage an amount of Rs. 1,05,978/- was paid by the complainants to the opposite parties toward the price of house plot covered under Ex A.4. The Ex A.9 are the bunch of 51 receipts, they envisages an amount of Rs. 1,96,938/- was paid by the complainants to the opposite parties towards the price of house plots covered under Ex A.5. The A.10 are the bunch of 47 receipts, they envisage an amount of Rs. 1,89,438/- was paid by complainants to the complainant towards the price of house plots covered under Ex A.6. The Ex A.11 and 12 are the office copy of lawyer’s notices dt 8.3.2004 and 30.10.2004. The Ex A.13 is reply dt 26.11.2004 of opposite parties to Ex A.12 lawyer’s notice of complainants. The Ex A.14 letter dt 22.12.2003 of opposite parties to the complainant requesting time for registration of plots till February, 2004. The Ex A.15 is letter dt 5.8.2004 of opposite parties to the complainant requesting further time till October.2004 for registration of plots. The facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 to A.15 and the complaint avernments and the complainant’s sworn affidavit avernments in reiteration of their case are neither rebutted nor denied by the opposite parties and hence their appears every bonafidies in the claim of the complainant. All the above said material indicate in uni-tone that the opposite parties after receiving total price of none plots reserved by the complainants did not bother to keep up the promise for executing sale deeds in favour of the complainants.
10. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties is not executing registered sale deed in favour of complainants nor returning the amount paid by the complainant towards the said plots, apart from not keeping up in its promise. Thus, the said lapsive conduct of opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant consumer and there by the grievances of the complainant are covered under CP Act and there arises liability on part of opposite parties.
11. In this case the complainant is seeking a relief for registration of nine plots, but the complainants did not brought on record the approved layout plan of Sri Padmavathi Gardens of opposite parties, hence the relief for registering nine plots to the complainants cannot be granted, but the complainants are remaining entitled for the refund of price paid by them towards the costs of the said nine plots along with interest and costs also. As the complainant was driven by the opposite parties to the Forum for redressal.
12. Therefore, the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund to the complainant Rs. 9,15,243/- (cost of none plots) with 12% interest from 31.12.2001 till realization along with costs of Rs. 20,000/- within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictation to the Stenographer, Type to dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open Court this the 20th day of July, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite parties
Ex A.1 Proposed lay out, issued by
Sri Padmavathi Gardens.
Ex A.2 Agreement infavour of complain- -Nil-
Ant for sale of plots No. 2077 and 2080 along
With pass books No. 1082 and 1084.
Ex A.3 Agreement for sale of plots 2078 and
2079 infavour of complainant No.1 along with
relevant pass books No.s 1081 and 1083.
Ex A.4 Agreement plot No. 26/3 infavour of
Complainant along with pass book No. 1784.
Ex A.5 Agreement in favour of complainant No.2
For plot No.s 2076 and 2081 along with relevant
Pass book No.s 1169, 1170.
Ex A.6 Agreement infavour of complainant No.2
For sale plots No.s 2075 and 2082 along with
Relevant pass book No.s 1745 and 1746.
Ex A.7 Admission fees receipts (90) sub-
scription receipts total amount of Rs. 4,24,689/-
covering the plots under Ex A.2 and A.3.
Ex A.8 12 receipts, total amount of Rs. 1,05,978/-
Covering the price Ex A.4 plot.
Ex A.9 51 receipts total amount of Rs. 1,96,938/-
Covering the price under Ex A.5 plot.
Ex A.10 47 receipts total amount of
Rs. 1,89,438/- covering the price under Ex A.6
Plot.
Ex A.11 xerox copy of legal notice dt 8.3.2004.
Ex A.12 xerox copy of legal notice dt 30.10.2004.
Ex A.13 Reply letter addressed to Sri P. Lokes-
wara Reddy, Advocate dt 26.11.2004 through Asst.
Branch Manager, G.P.R Housing Private Ltd.
Ex A.14 Letter addressed to Sri R. Thirupathi
Reddy Kurnool, dt 22.12.2003.
Ex A.15 Letter addressed to Sri R.Tirupathi
Reddy Kurnoo, dt 5.8.2004 through Asst.
Branch Manager, GPR Housing Private Ltd.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
