Date of Filing:  06-09-2016

                                                                                   Date of Order: 24-06-2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B.  PRESIDENT.

HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER

Monday, the  24^th  day of June, 2019

C.C.No.432 /2016

Between

1. Jay Kumar Agarwal S/o. Radhakrishna Agarwal

Age: 52 years, Occ: Self Business

2.  Shiva  Kumar Agarwal S/o. Radhakrishna Agarwal

Age: 50 years, Occ: Self Business

3.  Gouri Shanker Gupta  S/o. Radhakrishna Agarwal

Age: 40 years, Occ: Self Business

           All R/o.11-4-651, flat No.B5, Express Apts,

           Lakdikapul, Hyderabad – 500004

4. Parsi Pandurangam S/o. P.Narayana

Age :  55 years, Occ: Pvt.  Employee

R/o.19-1-55, Doodbowli, Hyderabad – 500064        ……Complainants

And

      The Managing Director,

      Telangana State Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd,

      7^th floor, Gagan Vihar Complex, M.J.Rd, Nampally,

      Hyderabad, Telangana – 500001                                       ….Opposite Party

Counsel for the complainants        :  Party in person

Counsel for the opposite Party      :  Mr. P.Veerabhadra Rao

.                      

O R D E R

(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)

            This complaint has  been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that  non refunding of the advance  amount paid for the allotment of the flats for opposite party amounts to deficiency of service  hence a direction  to refund the said amount  and the cost of this complaint. 

1. The complaint averments  in brief are that opposite party is a company incorporated  under the  Companies Act 1956 and the  Government  embarked a scheme of  affordable housing  known as Rajiv Swagruha.  For implementation of the project  the State Government  incorporated a special purpose    vehicle in August, 2007.  The company is working on no profit or no loss basis.  The company has taken a programme  for execution of the projects at  Bandlaguda and  Pocharam and construction was  entrusted  to Agencies  on contractual terms and conditions. 

           The complainants  have booked four flats by paying Rs.5,000/- as advance for  each of the flat’s  along with   application  for booking of the same on  7-04-2007, 9-4-2007 and 12-04-2007.  The opposite party  did not declare the  price of  each flat at the time of  receiving the application for booking and informed  the same will be declared  at the time of allotment.  Subsequently  opposite party issued allotment orders in the month of   October/November 2008 and asked the applicants  to deposit 25% of the cost of the  flats by 15-3-2009  thorough  a notice issued  in the month of February, 2009.  On seeing  the price declared the complainant’s found that   the price was not affordable  to them  and  sought  for cancellation of allotment made  and  to refund the  booking advance paid along with application.  The complainants submitted refund application with refund vouchers   and advance receipts on 12-3-2009.  As per the  condition of the  refund  rules  the opposite party shall deduct Rs.1,000/- towards processing charges  after the issue of the allotment.  The Housing Minister Silpa Mohan Reddy  in the press conference  held on 3-6-2010 stated that  refund would be made after  deducting Rs.100/- towards processing fee instead of Rs.1,000/- as cancelation charges and process of refund will start  within 7 to 10 days.  The said press statement was published  in almost all the  newspapers.  The complainants have addressed a letter to the opposite party on 30-8-2010 and marked copy of the same to the  Housing Minister  for refund of the amount.  They made several visits to opposite party for refund of the amount but there was no response.  They also submitted their grievance to the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance in the month of March, 2013 at New Delhi. The same was forwarded to Joint Secretary to Government,Housing Department, AP, and Secretariat Hyderabad to take necessary action.  In turn the joint Secretary forwarded the letter to the Secretary   APHB, Hyderabad for necessary action but   opposite party failed to refund the amount.

               The complainants have approached  the Hon’ble Lokayukta   in the month of  May, 2015 against the opposite party AP Housing Board  and  Joint Secretary  to Government  of A.P.  The Hon’ble  Lokayukta  directed the opposite party to looked into the  matter in a period of two months  time.  Complainants have approached before the  opposite party on 21-09-2015 for inquiry  and produced  the copy of refund vouchers  submitted by them on 12-3-2009.   The opposite party produced a circular  dated 23-6-2009  along with  allotment of letters dated 30-10-2008,  31-10-2008 and 5-11-2008 stating that  the complainants were  directed to make payments of 25% of the total cost within three months  from the date of  letter of allotment  orders and sent to them but the  complainants did not respond hence requested the concerned authorities  to treat the complainants as defaulters and  forfeiting the   amount paid at the time of making  applications.  Accordingly orders were issued  on 5-10-2015 and served on the complainants.  The reasons given for forfeiting the amount paid is not correct.  The opposite party allowed the payment to be made on or before 15-3-2009 but cancelled the allotment before that and same was displayed in the  official website.  The opposite party did not send communication regarding  forfeiture of application money.  The action of the opposite party clearly amounts to unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint.    

2. Opposite party filed written version  admitting  receiving of money  from the complainant  along with  application for  allotment of flat but denied the rest of the complainants version.  The allotment   orders were issued in the month of October/November 2008 and  asked the complainants  to deposit the amount  before the due date  as per the allotment terms and conditions. A notice was sent in  February 2009 allowing  the time to make payment latest  by 15-03-2009.  The complainants  never  adhered to the terms and conditions  of the allotment letter  and neglected to pay the   amounts.  Because of nonpayment of the amount in the  given time  by  corporation sustained loss  as the flat  could not be sold to 3^rd parties  on time.  The construction of the flats was made on  “no loss or no profit” basis.  The cost  mentioned is only tentative   subject to further revision.  The complainants were once again   given an opportunity   by letter dated 20-2-2009 for payment of the amount  but they failed.  The corporation incurred lot of expenditure    in issuing the notices, publication etc.  As per the terms  and conditions    and the policy of the corporation   there is no clause for refund of the processing fee paid   and same will be forfeited  in the event applicant failed to pay the amount in  time.  A final notice   was also issued to the complainant  but they did not respond.    Since the complainant failed to respond despite repeated requests  from the concerned authorities  allotments were cancelled  and they were treated  as defaulters  and processing fee paid  was forfeited.   Therefore the complainants are not eligible for  refund of the  processing fee  they paid.  Hence the complaint is liable to be  dismissed. 

             In the enquiry  the  3^rd complainant has  filed  evidence affidavit reiterating the  material facts of the complaint and  have got exhibited  twelve (12) documents.    Similarly for the  Opposite Party  evidence affidavit  of Sri Ch.Satya Murthy stated to be  Chief Engineer  in office of Rajiv Swagruha  Corporation  is got  filed  and through  him  fourteen  (14) documents are exhibited.   Both  sides  have filed written arguments.

            On a consideration of material available on  record the following points have emerged for consideration .        

1. Whether the complainants can maintain a consumer complaint ?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the amount claimed in the complaint? To what relief?

Point No.1:  According to the complainant  they have paid the  booking advance on 7-04-2007, 09-4-2007 and 12-04-2007  and  when they were informed the price of the flat they found that they cannot afford  cost  of it hence sought for  refund of the  amount paid.  Ex.A1 to  A4 are  stated to be refund vouchers  and they are stated  to have been submitted  on  the very same day of making of payment along with application for allotment of the flat.  The complainants have not filed the copy of  application  submitted along  with payment for allotment of the flat.  The application normally contains terms and conditions relating to the  refund of the advance amount paid in the event of not accepting the allotment.  It is evident from  Ex.A10 & A11  that  notices  were addressed to the complainant by the opposite party  informing  them about the  allotment of flats and they were asked to pay  25% of the total cost within three months from the date of issue of  allotment order.  But there was   no  response.  As could be seen from Ex.A12 proceedings  of the  Managing Director of TSRSCL, Hyderabad  the complainants  have approached  Hon’ble Lokayukta  with a complaint against opposite party seeking direction for refund of the amount paid.  The Hon’ble Lokayukta  while disposing the complaint  filed before it  directed the Managing Director  to enquire into  the matter.   In response to it  a notice was issued to the complainant to attend the office on 21-09-2015 for  enquiry.  Enquiry was  made in  these proceedings also reveals that letter of allotment  issued to the complainants on 30-10-2008 and 31-10-2008 with a direction to make payment of 25% of the total cost but  they did not respond even  to subsequent letters.  As they failed to pay the  initial payment allotments  were cancelled treated the complainants  as defaulters  cancelled the allotment duly forfeiting the processing fee of Rs.5,000/- paid by them.  So  by Ex.A12 proceedings  the competent authority  passed orders  forfeiting  the processing fee  paid by the complainant.  This Forum cannot  enquire the validity of the proceedings  of  the Managing Director  of TSRSCL, Hyderabad  under Ex.A12 as an Appellate authority.  The proper remedy for the complainants  to file either  a Writ petition or  Revision Petition  before the Hon’ble High Court  against these proceedings.   There was no response  from the competent authorities  including  opposite party for the request made by the complainant  for  refund of the amount. This Forum  cannot examine the issue whether not  responding  the request  amounts to deficiency of service or not.   When the proceedings have been issued declaring that the complainants were defaulters and consequently   forfeited the processing fee to enquire the said proceedings are valid or not is not a job of the Consumer Forum.  Accordingly point  is answered against the complainant

Point No.2: In the light of the final proceedings   issued by competent authority   complainants cannot maintain the present complaint before this Forum.  Hence the complaint is   dismissed.  

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

                        Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced  by us on this the  24^th  day of June , 2019

MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1 to A4 are refund vouchers along with  advanced stamped receipts  of complainants

Ex.A5 is letter dated 30-08-2010 addressed to the opposite party and copy to Minster for Housing

Ex.A6 is letter dated  4/5/2013 from Jt.Secretary, Housing Dept to Secretary APHB

Ex.A7 is complaint to Lokayuktha

Ex.A8 is  application data from  website of opposite  party

Ex.A9 letter dated  30/10/2008 from GM of opposite  party

Ex.A10 letter dated 20/2/2009 from GM of opposite  party

Ex.A11 letter dated 22/7/2009 from GM of opposite  party

Ex.A12 order dated 5/10/2015  from opposite party

Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party

Ex.B1 to B4 allotment letters to complainants

Ex.B5 to B8 are    final notices    to complainants

Ex.B9 to B12 are  refund  letters of  complainants in various  dates

Ex.B13 proceedings of the Managing  Director

Ex.B14 is refund policy circular  and instructions. 

MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT