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., Membe
Wednesday 25th day of February, 2004
C.D.No.6/2003
A.Ramakrishna Goud,
S/o. A.Narayana Goud,
R/o. Ayyavaripulli (V),
Mahaboob Nagar Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri S.E.Venkatesh Murthy.
-Vs-
Somisetty Venkata Ramaiah,
Managing Director,
M/S .Parameswari Estates,
H.No. 62/234,
Fort, Chidambara Rao Street,
Near Central Library,
Old Bus Stand Road,Kurnool . . Opposite party represented by
Counsel Sri B.Rama Subba Reddy.
O R D ER
(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 plot in Jaya Nagar after receiving the balance amount of RS.1,280/- and registration charges RS.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and suffering, RS.2,000/- as cost of the complaint and any such 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 being attracted by the brochure with regard to the sale of plots in Jaya Nagar, Kurnool, joined in the month of November, 1985 as a member with the opposite party by paying admission fee and was allotted a membership No. 368 and the periodical monthly installment amount was RS.160/- for 48 months, but the complainant paid only 40 installments and 8 installments are due to the tune of RS.1,280/- later the complainant made sincere efforts to pay off the balance amount of RS.1,280/- and get the plot register in his name, but the opposite party did not come forward to register the plot, constrained the complainant to issued legal notice dt 30.6.2001, the opposite party gave reply dt 23.8.2001 to the said notice stating the opposite party is ready to register the plot if the complainant pays the balance amount with 18% interest and registration charges. The complainant was ready to pay the said amount and registration charges but the opposite party was evading the complainant. In spite of several demands both orally and in writing the opposite party did not register the plot, the complainant suffered mental agony and torture. Hence the opposite party in not registering the plot in favour of complainant, after receiving balance amount is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant.
3. The complainant side relied on the documentary record Viz., (1) legal notice dt 30.6.2000 issued by complainant’s counsel to the opposite party (2) reply of opposite party’s counsel dt 23.8.2001 to Ex A.1 (3) postal receipt dt 30.7.2001 through which Ex A.1 was sent to opposite party
(4) postal acknowledgement of opposite party dt 31.7.2001 for the receipt of Ex A.1 (5) letter dt 23.5.1990 of opposite party to the complainant (6) Application containing terms and conditions along with plan (7) two receipts issued by opposite party to the complainant as to the payment of first and 40th installments besides to his own sworn-affidavit in reiteration of its case as evidence and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.7 for their appreciation in this case. The complainant also caused interrogatories to the opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed its written version denying the case as not maintenance in Law or on facts. But admits the complainant paying 40 installments up to 20.9.1989 and did not pay the remaining 8 installments of RS.160/- P.M totaling RS.1, 280/- and the scheme was closed in the year 1990, so the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly bared by limitation.
5. Even though the complaint is bared by limitation the opposite party is ready to execute registered sale deed for the allotted house plot, if the complainant pays balance amount of RS.1,280/- with 18% per annum up to date from default date and registration charges. It further states the complainant is not entitled to claim damages and costs as there are laches on the part of the complainant itself and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and prays to allow the complaint without damages and costs with a direction to the complainant to pay balance amount with interest.
6. The opposite party side relied on its sworn-affidavit in reiteration of its written version as evidence and suitable replied to the interrogatories filed by the complainant.
7. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out his case against the opposite party alleging deficiency of service on part of the opposite party, entitling him to the reliefs sought from them ?:-
8. It is not in dispute that the complainant joined the scheme of the opposite party for the purchase of house plot and paid 40 installments out of 48 installments and was a defaulter from there on. There after complainant the making several approaches to the opposite party to pay the balance amount and get the plot registered in his favour, but the opposite party was not available to get the plot registered and evading the complainant and alleges deficiency of service on part of opposite party. The Ex A.6 is the application containing terms and conditions along with layout plan, it envisage the size of the plot as to 20x 55 feet, each member has to pay RS.160/- per month for 48 months, the Ex A.7 are the two receipts issued by the opposite party to the complainant i.e first installment and 40th installment receipts dated 15.11.1985 and 20.9.1989 envisage the complainant paying RS.160/- towards the scheme for the purchase of house plot. The Ex A.5 is letter written by opposite party to the complainant dt 23.5.1990 envisages the opposite party requesting the complainant to pay the balance amount for two plots of RS.1, 280/- each in pursuance to Ex A.5 the complainant made several approaches to the opposite party to pay the balance amount but the opposite party evaded to receive amount and to execute register sale deed, in favour of the complainant. The Ex A.1 is the legal notice dt 30.6.2001 issued by complainants counsel requesting the opposite party to receive the balance amount of RS.1, 280/- and registration charges and register the plot in his favour. The opposite party replied to Ex A.1 through his counsel vide Ex A.2 stating that the opposite party is ready to register the house plot if the complainant pays the balance amount and registration charges and alleges the claim is bared by limitation.
9. The only plea of the opposite party is that the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation but this plea remains as plea for plea sake because the opposite party in its reply legal notice admits its liability to accept the balance amount and to register the plot in favour of the complainant, so the limitation starts from admission made by opposite party in Ex A.2 i.e reply legal notice.
10. From the above indisputable evidence and on careful consideration of facts on record what appears is that the complainant is entitle on get his plot register in his favour, on condition of payment of balance amount of RS.1, 280/- with 6% interest to the opposite party and the request of the complainant for compensation and costs is dis-allowed as their appears no circumstances to order it.
11. Therefore in the result of the above discussions the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to register the plot in the name of the complainant within one month of the receipt of this order, subject to payment of residuary balance of RS. 1,280/- with 6% simple interest from the due date by the complainant to the opposite party and the complainant bearing the necessary registration and stamp charges for registration of the plot. In default of compliance of the above order by the opposite party, he shall be liable to pay the amount of installments already collected and of any amounts subsequently paid to this order with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition and RS.1, 000/- each as compensation and costs respectively.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 25th day of February, 2004.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
