Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking refund of Rs.1,75,000/- being the amount paid by him towards purchase of plot together with interest, Rs.10,000/- as damages and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

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

        The complainant agreed to purchase a plot measuring 200 square yards @Rs.3500/- (including development charges).   Employees of the opposite party came to Guntur and issued an application on 07-09-11 and received Rs.500/- towards application charges.   The complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party by way of cheque bearing No.919470 dated 07-09-11.   The opposite party received the said amount and issued a receipt and allotted plot No.15 in Sai Medha Ventures.   The complainant also paid Rs.50,000/- and another sum of Rs.25,000/- on the same day by way of cheque and cash.   In all the complainant paid Rs.1,75,000/- to the opposite party for purchase of the said plot.   The opposite parties did not execute any agreement with the complainant towards the said transaction inspite of several demands.   The opposite parties neither executed the agreement nor returned Rs.1,75,000/- to the complainant.   The complainant issued notice on 16-01-13.   The opposite parties neither gave reply nor executed agreement nor returned the amount.   The complainant suffered mental agony on account of the attitude of the opposite party. 

3.   The opposite parties were set exparte for not filing version.  

4. Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked on behalf of complainant.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. And if so, whether the complainant is entitled to claim interest and damages as prayed for?
4. To what relief?

6.  POINT No.1:-   The opposite party is shown as resident of Vijayawada. The registry took the objection about territorial jurisdiction at the time of registering the complaint itself.  On hearing the complainant, the complaint was numbered as CC 46 of 2013 as  the complainant prima facie satisfied the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Complainant in his complaint mentioned that the opposite parties obtained signature on Ex.A-1 application and received cheque at Guntur on 07-09-11.   As part of cause of action arose at Guntur, we are of the view that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and answer this point in favour of complainant.  

7.   POINT No.2:-   Ex.A-1 is the application form issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant.   Under Ex.A-3 the complainant paid Rs.500/- on 07-09-11 towards Ex.A-1 application fee. On the date of application itself the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cheque (Ex.A-2) and another sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque on 24-10-11 (Ex.A-4); Rs.10,000/- on 23-02-12 (Ex.A-7) and Rs.15,000/- on 29-03-12 (Ex.A-8) to the opposite party.        In all the complainant paid Rs.1,75,000/- under Exs.A-2, A-4, A-7 and A-8. 

8.   Ex.A-5 is the postal acknowledgment of the opposite party.  In Ex.A-5 at para (d) the complainant mentioned the following:

            “My client requested you several times regarding the execution of the agreement with you and the same could not be done by you and dragging on the matter for your own benefit and my client has insisted you either to execute the agreement or to return the amount paid by my client with interest and for that you have issued a cheque bearing No.279612, dt.20-12-12 for Rs.1,75,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Vijaywada in favour of my client and my client presented the said cheque through his banker i.e., ICICI Bank Limited, Guntur and the said cheque was returned dishonored with an endorsement of “Funds Insufficient” and my client immediately contacted your Marketing Executives and informed about the dishonour of cheque, and till today you have not paid the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to my client and hence you committed deficiency of service on your part in not executing the agreement in favour of my client”.         

9.     The above averments revealed that the opposite parties issued a chque bearing No.279612 dated 20-12-13 for Rs.1,75,000/- drawn at State Bank of India, Vijayawada in favour of the complainant and the said chque was dishonoured for want of insufficient funds.  The complainant did not mention about the opposite party issuing cheque and its dishonour in his evidence affidavit as well in complaint.   Therefore the above contents need not be relied.

10.   As seen from Ex.A-1 the opposite parties did not get his lay out approved prior to calling applications from prospective purchasers and that itself amounted to unfair trade practice in our considered opinion.   We therefore opine that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and answer this point in favour of the complainant.

11.  POINT No.3:-     Being a commercial transaction awarding interest @18% pa., will meet ends of justice in our considered opinion from the date of notice i.e,, 14-01-13. 

12.   The complainant claimed Rs.10,000/- as damages towards mental agony.   The complainant in our considered opinion suffered mental agony as the opposite party neither refunded the amount nor executed an agreement.   The amount of Rs.10,000/- claimed by the complainant cannot be said as excess or exorbitant.   We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainant.

13.   POINT No.4:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:

 1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees one lakh, seventy five thousand only) together with interest @18% p.a., from 03-04-13 till payment.

2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as damages and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs.

4. The amounts ordered above shall be paid by the opposite party within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 10^th day of March, 2014.

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:    NIL

        PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.