This case is coming for final hearing on 19-06-2014 in the presence of Sri S.Sreerama Murthy & Sri P.Sreerama Murthy, Advocates for the Complainants and of Sri Lodagala Krishna, Advocate for 2^nd Opposite Party and 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                                                                                                                             

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the complainants is that the 2^nd opposite party canvassed the complainants that the complainants get a plot for an extent of 150sq.yds in Golf Village and the complainants believed the representations made by the 2^nd opposite party and entered into agreement on 23.02.2008 with a total sale consideration of Rs.1,36,000/-.  The complainants paid initially Rs.20,000/- towards part sale consideration and the remaining amount of Rs.1,15,000/- shall be paid in three installments.  Subsequently, the complainants made enquiries about the site which was offered by the opposite party and also asked the 2^nd opposite party to show the VUDA approvals and also site documents to enable the complainants to pay the balance sale consideration, but they came to know that there was no development in the site offered by the opposite parties.  Then, the complainants requested the opposite parties to pay back advance amount paid by them in a sum of Rs.20,000/- with 24% interest.  But there was no positive action from the opposite parties, then, the complainants issued registered Lawyer’s Notice on 21.07.2010 to both the opposite parties and the same was received by them on 27.07.2010 and 1^st opposite party gave a reply notice on 05.08.2010 with all false allegations.  The complainants stated that the attitude of the opposite parties by collecting amounts from the public and did not develop the land as per the scheme rules which clearly establishes the negligence of the opposite parties and deficiency in service.  The complainants approached the opposite parties several times and requested them to show their venture and documents, but they failed to do so.  Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite parties;

a)      to pay Rs.20,000/- with 24% p.a. interest from 23.02.2008.

b)      to pay Rs.80,000/- towards compensation besides costs.

2.       On the otherhand, the opposite parties 1 & 3 called absent and set exparte.

3.       The 2^nd Opposite party filed its counter and denied all the allegations and pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainants not paid the full installment amounts to the opposite parties, as such there is no necessity to register the plot in his name.  The complainants filed the complaint for the purpose of harassing the opposite parties and there is no cause of action, hence this complaint is to be dismissed.

4.       At the time of enquiry, the complainants filed affidavit and written arguments along with documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 on behalf of complainants.  On the otherhand, the 2^nd opposite party filed its counter, affidavit and written arguments.  No documents are marked on behalf of 2^nd opposite parties.  Both the counsels were heard who reiterated their versions.

5.       In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

          Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?
6.       As per Ex.A1 i.e., Purchase Agreement between the complainants and the opposite parties and 3^rd, 4^th & 5^th pages of Ex.A1 is the terms and conditions, 6^th and 7^th pages is the Purchasers acknowledgment of representations and 8^th page is the additional benefits for the club members and 9^th page is the few facts about the concept.  Ex.A2 is the Terms and conditions for allotment of complementary plot.  The Opposite parties are canvassed, then, the complainants paid Rs.20,000/- and joined as a member with the opposite parties.  The version of the complainants is that the opposite parties promised that it will register the plot for an extent of 150sq.yds at Golf Village and the Complainants believed its version and paid Rs.20,000/- towards part sale consideration  on 23.02.2008 on the same day both the parties entered into an agreement is not disputed by the opposite parties.  On the same day, the opposite parties issued terms and conditions regarding the complementary Plot i.e., Ex.A2, where in it clearly mentioned that “Plot allotted is expected to be registered in your name within 18 months from the date of full payment of member fee, completion of legal formalities and development of project subject to full payment of registration and development charges of Rs.20,000/- paid in favour of our sisters concern M/s Amrutha Estates.  The complainants subsequently verified about the approvals etc., and they came to know that there were no approvals by VUDA, then, they demanded the advance amount paid by them, but there was no reply from the opposite parties.  Then, the complainants issued registered Lawyer’s notice i.e., Ex.A3 on 21.07.2010 and the same was received by the opposite parties on 27.07.2010 i.e., Ex.A4.  Then, the opposite parties issued registered reply notice on 05.08.2010 i.e., Ex.A5 where in they mentioned that the complainants paid only Rs.20,000/- and he is a defaulter.  Hence, he has no right to demand the amount back.

7.       The opposite parties pleaded in its counter as well as in written arguments that the total sale consideration is Rs.1,36,000/-, but the complainants initially paid only Rs.20,000/- towards part sale consideration, he is a defaulter.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on its part and there is no necessity to register the plot in his name.  The opposite parties agreed that even though Ex.A2 is written as complementary plot, they themselves agreed in their counter and evidence affidavit that the total sale consideration is Rs.1,36,000/- hence, the Forum is of the view that the opposite party collected the amount on 23.02.2008 from the complainants to allot a plot including membership fee, after that the complainants came to know that there was no proper approvals from the authorities, hence they stopped making payments which is reasonable. 

8.       The plea of the opposite parties regarding the forfeiture of the amount paid by the complainant is not maintainable as there was no notice issued by the opposite parties regarding the forfeiture of the amount. There is a clause in Ex.A1 that the opposite parties should issue notice regarding the forfeiture, but they failed to do so.  Moreover, the opposite parties not provided any holiday-in to the complainants and not called upon him to avail holiday-in by paying the balance amount and simply, they kept quite after receiving the amount of Rs.20,000/- which clearly shows their deficiency in service.  Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay back the amount of Rs.20,000/- with9% interest from the date of payment i.e., 23.02.2008.

8.       The complainants are with a fond hope that they will get a plot with all approved plans but they failed to get the plot, because of the acts of the opposite parties and they suffered mentally and financially.  Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation which would be just and proper. 

          Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.       In the result, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 23.02.2008 till the date of payment and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- besides costs of Rs.1,500/-.  Time for compliance one month.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2014.

   Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

Member                                                                          President (FAC)

                                                                             District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                       Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainants:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

NIL

    Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

  Member                                                                         President (FAC)

                                                                             District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                       Visakhapatnam