Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/67/2014

Maddipatla Chandrakala, W/o. M. Srinivasulu Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, Agri Gold Projects Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M.Vani, P.Murali Krishna reddy

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:10.11.2014

Order Date: 10.08.2015

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

MONDAY THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

 

C.C.No.67/2014

 

Between

 

Maddipatla Chandrakala,

W/o. M.Srinivasulu Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 37 years, House Wife,

D.No.18-8-3C, Madhura Nagar,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                                          … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         The Chairman,

            Agri Gold Projects Ltd.,

            Regd. Office: # 6-3-680/A/B,

            Thakur Mansion Lane,

            Near Somajiguda Circle,

            Punjagutta,

            Hyderabad – 500 082.

 

2.         The Manager,

            Agri Gold Office,

            D.No.14/16/A, Opp. Veg. Market,

            I.C.S. Road,

            Gudur,

            Nellore District.

 

3.         The Manager,

            Agri Gold Business Centre,

            D.No.8-65/1, TUDA Plots,

            R.C.Road,

            Tirupati,

            Chittoor District.                                                                  …  Opposite parties..

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 29.07.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing M.Vani, counsel for the complainant, and K.V.Ramana Reddy, counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 3, and opposite party No.2 remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986 by the complainant for the following reliefs against the opposite parties 1 to 3, 1) to direct the opposite parties to refund the sale consideration of Rs.2,01,100/- paid by the complainant along with interest at 24% p.a. from December 2013, till realization   2) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the litigation.

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:-   that the opposite parties   1 to 3 are doing real estate business, they have laid a venture at Gudur in the name and style of “Eco Green Fields” wherein several plots are laid and offered for sale. Complainant joined as a member. She was allotted plot No.883, which is in an extent of 5.44 cents. The amount is to be paid in installments. Complainant paid the amount from 18.01.2013 to 16.06.2013, in total she paid a sum of Rs.2,01,100/-, but the opposite parties going on postponing registration of the plot. When the complainant insisted for registration or refund of amount paid, opposite parties offered another plot No.276 at Tirupati, where another venture in the name and style of “Fortune Ganesh Vanam” was laid, for which complainant also accepted, but opposite parties failed to register either plot No.883 in Eco Green Fields or plot No.276 in Fortune Ganesh Vanam and also failed to refund the amount paid by the complainant. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.2, remained exparte.

            4.  Opposite parties 1 and 3 filed written version admitting the allotment of plot No.883 to the complainant in Eco Green Fields venture launched by the opposite parties at Gudur. Later, alternatively allotted plot No.276 at Fortune Ganesh Vanam venture to the complainant at Tirupati, and payment of Rs.2,01,100/- by the complainant was also admitted. Opposite parties further contended that there was delay in securing permission and approval for the said ventures from the concerned authorities. They are ready to start registration of the plots, as soon as they received the permission and approval. That the complainant is a defaulter in payment of remaining cost of the plot. Registration will be effected only on payment of total cost of the plot. There is no cause of action for filing the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint in the interests of justice.

            5.  The complainant and opposite parties 1 and 3 have filed their respective chief affidavits and written arguments. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the complainant, whereas no documents for the opposite parties.

            6. Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

            (ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iii).  To what relief?

            7.  Point No.(i):-   on perusal of the complaint, written version, evidence affidavits and written arguments filed on behalf of both parties and upon hearing the counsel for both parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant joined as a member in “Eco Green Fields” wherein the opposite parties have started a venture and laid number of plots, out of which plot No.883 was allotted to the complainant. On installments, a sum of Rs.2,01,100/- was collected from the complainant under            6 receipts covered by Ex.A4. The payments were collected from 18.01.2013 to 16.06.2013 i.e. in 6 monthly installments. The opposite parties stated the reasons for non-registration of the plot, that there is delay in securing the permission and approval of the layouts from the concerned authorities, as such they could not register the plot in the name of the complainant. They are ready to start registrations in favour of the complainant and other consumers, who purchased the plots, as and when they received the permission and approval from the concerned authorities. Admittedly, the venture was started in the month of January 2013 itself, so far, though 2^1/2 years have been elapsed they are unable to secure the permission and approval from the concerned authorities. In such case, the opposite parties are expected to refund the amount collected from the complainant but instead of doing so, they offered another plot No.276 in “Fortune Ganesh Vanam” another venture launched at Tirupati, for which the complainant also accepted, inspite of it, the opposite parties failed to register either of the plots or to refund the amount. Therefore, it is apparent that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It seems, that the opposite parties without obtaining any prior permission or approval from the concerned authorities started the venture, laid the plots and also sold to number of customers including the complainant herein but failed to either register the plot or refund the amounts. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable for the deficiency in service. Accordingly, this point is answered.                              

            8.  Point No.(ii):-  in view of detailed discussion held on point No.1, the complainant being a consumer, who paid a sum of Rs.2,01,100/- is entitled to registration of the plot No.883 at Eco Green Fields near Gudur launched by the opposite parties or the plot No.276 at Fortune Ganesh Vanam, another venture laid by the opposite parties at Tirupati or for refund of the amount paid i.e. Rs.2,01,100/- with interest from the opposite parties. The reliefs sought for by the complainant appears to be genuine and reasonable and the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount. Since the opposite parties failed to obtain permission or approval from the concerned authorities so far as the above said two ventures till today, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.2,01,100/- paid by her towards the cost of the plot. The contention of the opposite parties that the plot will be registered only after paying total cost of the plot, cannot be accepted as the opposite parties failed to mention the total cost of the plot and total installments to be paid etc. having accepted that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.2,01,100/- towards cost of the plot, that apart no documentary evidence is filed to show the terms and conditions for the customers those who joined as members or those who wants to purchase the plots in the said two ventures. In the absence of said terms and conditions or any documentary evidence in support of the case of opposite parties, their contention cannot be accepted. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount paid by her with interest. Accordingly this point is answered.

            9.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for, as such the complaint is to be allowed.

            In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties        1 to 3 to refund the amount of Rs.2,01,100/- (Rupees two lakhs one thousand and one hundred only) with interest at 9% p.a. from January 2013, till realization and the opposite parties further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and also opposite parties further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. Opposite parties 1 to 3 further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-shall also carry interest at      9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.        

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 10^th day of August, 2015.   

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                                                             

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Maddipatla Chandrakala (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

RW-1:M. Ravi (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Pamphlets circulated by the opposite parties.
	Photo copy of letter issued by the complainant to the Opposite Parties, Dt: 12.08.2014.
	A true copy of Accounts Statement issued by the Opposite Parties. Dt: 17.07.2014.
	Photo copies of payment receipts. Receipt Numbers 41617 Dt: 28.01.2013 and 40540 Dt: 18.01.2013.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTYs

 

-NIL-

 

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                President

            // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

            

 

 

  Copies to:-   1. The Complainant.

                       2. The opposite parties 1 to 3.