Jallepalli Rama Koteswara Rao,

    S/o Anjaneyulu, Managing Director,

    Sri Srinivasa Estates,

    R/o Flat No.3A, Yamini Towers,

    1/5 Ramannapet,

    Koritepadu, Guntur.                                         …opposite parties

        This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 24-03-11 in the presence of Sri K. Sarath Babu, advocate for complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 remained absent and set exparte                              upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking refund of Rs.65,000/- together with interest @18% p.a., till payment, Rs.10,000/- towards damages for hardship and mental agony and for costs.

2.    In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The opposite parties started a venture under the name and style of M/s Golden City Venture in Chowdavaram village of Prattipadu Mandal, Guntur district.  The complainant was allotted plot No.109 on                17-12-06 by the opposite party after receiving Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and another Plot No.325 on 06-01-07 after receiving Rs.50,000/-.   The complainant further paid Rs.5,000/- to OP1 without receipt.  The complainant later came to know that the venture was laid in the assigned lands.   The opposite parties are quite aware that the lands under which the Golden City venture was proposed were assigned lands.   The opposite parties did not give reply to the notice issued by the complainant on 01-12-08.   The assigned lands are not inalienable and the opposite parties cannot validly transfer the plots to the complainants.    The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    After filing version the opposite parties 1 and 2 were exparte.

4.    The opposite parties contended that they are ready and willing to register the plot in favour of the complainant and as such the complainant is not entitled to seek refund of the agreement amount,               the said property is not assigned land, the dispute raised by the complainant did not come under the purview of the Forum, the complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.   Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of complainant. No documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties.

6.     Now the points that arose for consideration are:

1.   Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of                                service?

2. To what relief?

7.    POINT No.1:-     The opposite parties receiving Rs.10,000/- under a receipt dated 17-12-06 vide Ex.A-1, Rs.50,000/- on 06-01-07 and the opposite parties issuing Ex.A-3 notice on 09-04-07 are not in dispute.   The contention of the opposite party is that the lands in which the venture started is not assigned land.

8.    The complaint as well as affidavit was silent in which survey numbers Golden City venture was located.  But in Ex.A-4 notice survey numbers were mentioned.   The complainant filed the certificate issued by Tahsildar, Guntur to show that S.No.516/04 measuring Ac.3.11 cents, S.No.516/1 measuring Ac.1.89 cents and S.No.516/2 measuring Ac.2.68 cents were assigned in favour of Kuchipudi Peda Mastan, Darla Guravaiah and Jaladi Devis respectively.   But the complainant did not choose to mention the survey numbers either in the complaint or in his affidavit for the reasons best known to him.  Under those circumstances, it can be said that the complaint is lacking in material particulars.

9.    In the registered notice the complainant mentioned that the survey Nos.516/1, 516/2 and 516/4 are assigned lands.   Even in the absence of survey numbers both in the complaint and affidavit the opposite party contended that they are not assigned lands. It can therefore be inferred that opposite parties have received Ex.A-4 notice.  The certificate given by Tahsildar revealed that those survey numbers were assigned lands and assigned lands are not alienable in view of Act 9/77.   It is for the opposite party to prove that it comes within the exemptions       under Act 9/77.  The opposite party failed to rebut the same.  Offering plots in assigned land amounted to unfair trade practice which comes under the purview of deficiency of service.   Under those circumstances, ordering refund of amount will meet the ends of justice.  Hence, this point is answered in favour of the complainant accordingly.

10.  POINT No.2:-  In the result, the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 hereby directed to refund an amount of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty five thousand only) together with interest @9% p.a., from 01-12-08 till payment.
2. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.
3. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 2nd day of April, 2011.

Sd/-XXX                                           Sd/-XXX                             Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                                         MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

   DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties :   NIL

                                                                                     Sd/-XXX

                                                                                           PRESIDENT