Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/68/2014

Mahasamudram Thejovathi, W/o. M.Hari Prasad Reddy - 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.68/2014

 

Between

 

Mahasamudram Thejovathi,

W/o. M. Hari Prasad Reddy,

House Wife, 35 years,

D.No.2-1092/2, Padmavathi Nagar,

Piler,

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 1) to direct the opposite parties to refund the sale consideration of Rs.1,05,300/- paid by the complainant 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 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 and launched a venture in the name and style of “Eco Green Fields” near Gudur. The complainant joined as a member in the said venture and plot No.364 was allotted to the complainant. The complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.1,05,300/- towards cost of the plot commencing from 12.01.2013 to 16.02.2013, but the opposite parties failed to get the plot registered in the name of the complainant She insisted for refund of the amount paid. The opposite parties instead of getting the plot registered, alternatively offered a plot in their another venture  “Ganesh Vanam” in Tirupati, for which complainant also accepted, but the opposite parties failed to execute the registered sale deed in respect of plot No.364 at “Eco Green Fields” or alternatively another plot at “Ganesh Vanam” launched at Tirupati. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.2, remained exparte.

            4.  Opposite parties 1 and 3 have filed their written version jointly admitting the complaint averments in respect of complainant joined as a member and allotment of plot No.364 in the venture Eco Green Fields near Gudur and also that the complainant has paid Rs.1,05,300/- towards cost of the plot. The opposite parties further contended that the complainant became defaulter in payment of remaining installments towards cost of the plot. However, when the complainant insisted for registration of plot or requested for allotment of another plot alternatively, the opposite parties advised to take a plot in another venture “Ganesh Vanam” launched by the opposite parties at Tirupati. They further admitted that there was delay in registering the plots in view of non-securing permission and approval of the said ventures from the concerned authorities. The registration of plots will be done only when total cost of the plot is paid by the consumers. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and there is no cause of action for the complaint 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 A3 were marked on behalf of the complainant and 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 1 to 3 ?   

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

            (iii).  To what relierf?

            7.  Point No.(i):-  since the opposite parties have admitted specifically that the complainant is one of their members in the venture by name “Eco Green Fields” launched by the opposite parties at Gudur, and plot No.364 was allotted to the complainant, that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,05,300/- towards cost of the plot. They further admitted that because of the delay in obtaining permission and approval of layouts and plans from the concerned authorities, they could not register the plot in the name of complainant in the venture “Eco Green Fields”. When the complainant demanded either for registration of the plot No.364 in her name or to refund the amount paid or to allot another plot alternatively, the opposite parties advised the complainant to take plot in their another venture “Ganesh Vanam” launched at Tirupati. The complainant agreed for the same but because of the delay in securing permission and approval of the layouts from the concerned authorities, they could not register the plot in the name of the complainant. They are ready to register the plot in her name as and when they get permission and approval from the concerned authorities. The defense set out by the opposite parties appears to be baseless because they have launched the venture in the month of January 2013, though 2^1/2 years were lapsed, so far, they are unable to secure the permission and approval of the layouts from the concerned authorities. It appears prima facie that the opposite parties have launched the venture and offered plots to the customers / consumers without any prior permission or approval from the concerned authorities, it is nothing but misguiding and misleading the public. Therefore, it can be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered.

            8. Point No.(ii):-  in view of the discussion made supra, we are of the opinion that the complainant being a consumer, having paid a sum of Rs.1,05,300/- towards cost of the plot in “Eco Green Fields” venture launched by the opposite parties near Gudur, she is a genuine consumer and she is entitled to the registration of the plot or  refund of the amount paid, that too it seems that the said amount of Rs.1,05,300/- was paid within one month from the date of joining as a member. The opposite parties instead of getting the plot registered in the name of complainant or refund the amount paid by her, showing another plot at Tirupati, in their another venture in the name and style of “Fortune Ganesh Vanam”, also amounts to misguiding the consumers. It seems that complainant’s demand is genuine and reasonable. Therefore, she is entitled to  refund of the amount of Rs.1,05,300/- paid by her from the opposite parties 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 opposite parties, that the complainant being a genuine consumer is entitled to refund of Rs.1,05,300/- paid by her and she is entitled to recover the said amount from the opposite parties with interest and also entitled for the compensation, and the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties        1 to 3 to refund the amount of Rs.1,05,300/- (Rupees one lakh five thousand and three hundred only) paid by the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from January 2013 till realization. The opposite parties further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony caused by the opposite parties and the opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are 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: Mahasamudram Thejovathi (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: 20.10.2014.

 

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.