Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/54/2013

Komatla Suseela - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Dhatri Estates and Builders - Opp.Party(s)

R. Madhu Sudan Rao

30 May 2015

ORDER

      Reg. of the Complaint:11-03-2013

                                                                                                                           Date of Order:30-05-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

SATURDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.54/2013

 

BETWEEN:

Komatla Suseela W/o Prasada Rao,

Hindu, aged 40 years, R/a D.NO.58-9-91,

Karasa, Visakhapatnam.

…Complainant

AND:

 

Sri Dhatri Estates  and Builders,Rep. by its Branch Manager,

SRI E.Someswara Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years,

office at D.No.43-9-165/1,  TSN Colony, Dondaparthy,

Visakhapatnam and R/o D.No. 38-10-16/1   Maharani Veedhi,

Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.                                                         

…Opposite Party

 

This case coming on 26-05-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri R.Madhu Sudan Rao, Advocate for the Complainant, and of Sri A.N.Murali Krishna, Advocate for the Opposite Party, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 (As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)                                                                              

 

1. The complainant  filed the present complaint to refund an advance amount and interest @ 24% p.a., for Rs.1,17,802/- with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.67,500/-, compensation of Rs.10,000/- with costs.
2. The case of the complaint in brief is that on motivation of OP, he booked a flat in Sri Narasimha Nagar Layout by an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- on 31-03-2012 for which a receipt was passed and on disclosing the value of the flat in his layout is Rs.67,500/-, he agreed for the terms and conditions and again on demand of the OP,  he further paid an amount of Rs.57,500/- on 1-4-2012 and adjusted the same receipt amount of Rs.10,000/- and on intimation regarding the registration of the flat, he further demanded to pay the remaining balance amount of Rs.10,000/-. Due to his non availability, his nominee Sri Madhava Rao paid Rs.10,000/- on 5.6.2010 and acknowledged the same on stamp receipt and when he sought for registration through phone, OP requested time and thereupon in spite of his efforts for registration, there is no response from the complainant, hence this complaint.
3. Though Vakalat filed, OP did not chose to file counter.
4. To prove the case, the complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exhibit A1 to A4.
5. Exhibit A1 is the  stamped receipt dated 31-03-2012, Exhibit A2 is the Receipt issued BY the OP dated 01-04-2012, Exhibit A3 is the Stamped receipt, dated 05-06-2012 and Exhibit A4 is the Police Compliant receipt issued by the SHO, V Town P.s.,
6. On the other hand, no documents are marked on behalf of the OP.
7. Heard arguments of the Complainant.
8. Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

9. The evidence affidavit of the complainant clearly goes to show that that the Opposite Party laid a layout in the name and style of Sri Dhatri Estates and Developers as such he assured the said layout plots and intend to purchase a flat and thereby paid an advance for Rs.10,000/- on 31-03-2012 and on subsequent demand, he again paid Rs.57,500/- after adjusted the payment on 31-03-2012 and further payment made on 5-6-2012  for Rs.10,000/- as full and final settlement and further assured to register the same but the OP requested time saying so many reasons at lost, he has no option except to proceed police and lodge a complaint. Thus, the evidence of complainant clearly goes to show that the OP has failed to execute the required sale deed in favour of the complainant inspite of repeated demands made by him. His evidence, therefore, remains absolute and unchallenged because the OP has not resisted the claim and contest of the complainant, this forum has therefore, no option except to accept the version and veracity of the complainant. Added to it, the contents of Exhibit A1 to A3  clearly and categorically goes to show that the complainant made payment of Rs.10,000/- on 31-03-2012  and on Rs.57,500/- on 01-04-2012 an finally Rs.10,000/- towards Registrations changes on 5-6-2012. Even after the receipt of the amount, the OP failed to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Thus, it can be held that the OP has rendered deficient service for the complainant, as a result of which, the complainant was put to suffer a lot both mentally and physically.  Therefore, the claim made by the complainant deserves to be allowed.

10.     Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion is, what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled.   The rate of interest claimed by the Complainant is 24% p.a.  This rate of interest claimed by the Complainant appears to be excessive, of course, it is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A1 to A3 is commercial in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is licensed to claim interest @ 24% p.a. from 01-04-2012.  But at the same time, it is imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest.   Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix the rate of interest @ 9% p.a. on Ex.A 3 i.e., Last Payment Receipt in question.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

11.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of Complainant that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Parties and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is an un-disputed fact that the Opposite Parties did not refund the advance amount paid by the Complainant.   Naturally, that might have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 6,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.6,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

12.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainants ought         not have to approach this Forum had his claim for payment of        Rs.67,500/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite      Parties within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.   In our       considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs.2,500/- as         costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are      awarded.

13.     In the light of our discussion, referred supra,  the complainant is entitled to receive the sum of Rs.67,500/-  with interest for the said sum @ 9% only from 05-06-2012, compensation of Rs.6,000/- and costs of Rs.2,500/-.

14.     In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, directing the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.67,500/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only)  with interest @ 9% from 05-06-2012 till the date of realization, a compensation of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) and costs of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand and five hundred only). Time for compliance, one month from the date of this Order. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 30^th day of May, 2015.                                    

 

         

Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                         Sd/-

 

LADY MEMBER                 MALE MEMBER                           PRESIDENT       

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A1	31-03-2012	Stamped Receipt	Original
A2	01-04-2012	Receipt issued by Sri Dhatri Estates & Builders	Original
A3	05-06-2012	Stamped Receipt	Original
A4	17-10-2012	Police Complainant receipt issued by the SHO, V Town P.s.,	Original

For the Opposite Party:-   -nil-

Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                         Sd/-

 

LADY MEMBER                  MALE MEMBER                           PRESIDENT