Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/80/2012

Jayanthi Gopi Krishna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Telidevara Veera Venkata Satya Rama Krishna - Opp.Party(s)

S. Sreerama Murthy

08 Jan 2015

ORDER

 

Reg. of the Complaint:20-03-2012

                                                                                                                                 Date of Order:08-01-2015

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

                                            

 

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.80/2012

 

BETWEEN:

 

JAYANTHI GOPI KRISHNA S/O LATE ANNAJI RAO,

HINDU, AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.23-22-22/A,

SIVALAYAM STREET, VISAKHAPATNAM-1.

…COMPLAINANT

AND:

TELIDEVARA VEERA VENKATA SATYA SRI RAMA KRISHNA,

S/O LATE BHASKAR RAO, HINDU, AGED 53 YEARS,

PROPRIETOR OF SRI RAGHAVENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS,

R/O F-2, SBI APARTMENTS, VIJAYANAGAR PALACE,

PEDAWALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM-17.

 

…OPPOSITE PARTY

This case coming on 01-01-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI S.SREERAMA MURTHY, Advocate for the Complainant, and the OP being absent, 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 against the Opposite Parties, directing him to refund Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a., payment of damages of Rs.6,00,000/- towards hiking land value of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and costs.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is that the OP is doing Construction Business in the name and style of Sri.R.V.Cosntructions and during the course of his business, he approached him for booking a flat in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Akkayyapalem Ward, Dondaparthy, Lalithanagar, T.S.No.661, Patta No.139, admeasuring 400sq.yds with RCC housing bearing No.49-23-18 with undivided and unspecified share of Rs.35sq.yds with flat No.1 3^rd floor with a plinth area of 1375sft for total consideration of Rs.30,25,000/- agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards part sale consideration which was received by the OP on 3-3-2008 but the OP failed to hand over the flat in spite of several documents and thereby the OP committed default  in handing over the aforesaid flat. Hence, this complaint.

3.     The Opposite Party did not resist the case of the complainant and as such, it was set exparte.

4.     To prove the case of the complainant, he filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exhibit A1 on his behalf.

5.     The Complainant filed his Written Arguments.

6.     In the light of the written arguments filed by the complainant, treated as heard the complainant.

7.     Now the point that would arise for determination in this case is?

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

8.     As seen from Exhibit A1, Agreement to sell executed by the OP in favour of the complainant dated 03-03-2008, goes to show that the complainant booked the aforesaid flat by paying part of sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- on 03-03-2008 which is duly signed by the OP. The proof affidavit filed by the complainant further corroborates Exhibit A1 that he entered into an agreement with the OP for purchase of the above referred flat for a total consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- and paid Rs.6,00,000/- on the date of agreement i.e., 03-03-2008. His Evidence Affidavit also discloses inspite of the repeated demands made by the complainant, the OP failed to respond. It is not known till this date as to what made the OP to appear to file his contention in spite of receipt of notice on the date of adjournment. On scrutiny of the evidence of the complainant, we are of the considered view that the Evidence Affidavit let in by the complainant is unchallenged. The acts of the OP not only non-response to the complainant averments but also failed to fulfill the conditions of Exhibit A1 terms and conditions in spite of the repeated demands, clearly indicates that the acts of the OP comes under the purview of the deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the OP is liable to refund the advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- vide 03-03-2008 i.e., Exhibit A1, compensation and  interest too.

9.     Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion 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.A 1 is in                                 nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is  licensed to claim interest @ 24% p.a. on Ex.A 1.  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 at rate in question @ 9% p.a. on Ex.A 1   in question.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

10.    Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of Complainant that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Party and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss.   It is a un-dispute fact that the Opposite Party did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.   Naturally that made 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 60,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.60,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

11.    Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum, had his claim for refund of the advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- 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.5,000/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

12.    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the OP to refund an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) together with interest @ 9% p.a., from 03-03-2008 till the date of actual realization, and to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) and also costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the Complainant. 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 8^th day of January, 2015.

 

  Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

L.MEMBER                                        M.MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A-1	03-03-2008	Sale Agreement	Original

 

   Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

L.MEMBER                                        M.MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT