BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 15th day of September, 2005
CD No. 112/2004
Shik. Noorullah,
S/o. S. Jamsheer Saheb,
Retired Military Dentist,
R/o. MIG 169/II/A.P.H.B. Colony,
Adoni. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Executive Engineer
(Housing )A.P. Housing Board,
Abbas Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 9.9.2005 for arguments in the presence Sri M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for opposite party and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri K.V.H.Prasad, President)
1. This Consumer Disputes case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking an award against the opposite party directing him for return of the Vikas Cash Certificate No. 468315 dated 26.7.2000 obtained for Rs. 4,000/- by him in joint with the opposite party for a tenure of 36 months for maturity value of Rs. 5,301/-, which was deposited on 20.5.2004 with the opposite party by the complainant in pursuance of a direction given by the opposite party in letter No. 169/ MIG/EM-2/EE(KNL)/2000/ 578, dated 19.6.2000, as consequent to maturity period the said Vikas Cash Certificate fixed deposit as neither returned nor renewed inspite of several approaches for the same and ultimately on issual of legal notice dated 11.5.2004 also as opposite party did not respond and there by put the complainant to much mental agony and so claims the return of the said mature Vikas Cash Certificate, with interest at 24% interest form the date of maturity till realization and costs.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party caused its appearance and contested the case denying any of its liability to the complainant’s claim.
3. The written version of opposite party even though admits the complainant as owner of MIG H.No. 169/II AP Housing Board Colony, Adoni and deposit of said amount of Rs.4000/- in joint FDR with it for 36 months and its delivery to him, but allege the said was not a refundable one as was collected to meet the enhancement of land cost that may be decided by Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal (Adoni – Sub Court in OP No. 69/89) and writ proceedings in High Court of Andhra Pradesh filed in AS No. 903/89 in OP No. 69/89 on account of agitation by its land owner of 13 acres 16 cents in Sl No. 201, 201C and 252 etc for enhancement of compensation and the final cost of the house is to be decided by Head office of the opposite party in the light of L.A.O’ recent award granting Rs.17,94,455/- for an extent of 7 acres 40 cents and after said fixation of final costs the residuary amount of said fixed deposit, after adjusting the said difference cost, will be refunded.
4. It questions further the jurisdiction of Forum as a dispute regarding the pricing of the house/ plot by the Housing Board cannot be a consumer dispute as the agitation for any amount illegally charged by Housing Board, is to be made before a Civil Court. It further submits the case of complainant is bad for non joiner of Commissioner cum Vice Chairman, AP Housing Board, Kurnool, as the said amount was collected at his instructions and he is competent to the decide the matter. Hence, for want of proper cause of action seeks dismissal of complainant’s case with costs.
5. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant’s side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex A.1 to A.3 besides to his self sworn affidavit in reiteration of his case and interrogatories and replies exchanged in between them, the opposite party relies upon documentary record in Ex B.1 to B.4, besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case and interrogatories and replies exchanged in between them.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant his established has claim and the liability of the opposite party to make good of it.
7. The Ex A.1 is the xerox of Term Deposit receipt of Corporation Bank, Sadapuram for a maturity amount of Rs.5,301/- on completion of 36 months tenure i.e to 27.6.2003. It speaks that it was issued on joint deposit of Rs.4,000/- on 26.7.2000 by the opposite party and complainant. The delivery of its original being not disputed by the opposite party in its written version on one hand and as Ex A.3 letter of opposite party dated 19.6.2000 addressed to the complainant requires the submission of FDR in joint name of opposite party and complainant, there appears no much difficulty in appreciating the Ex A.1 as its contents speaks.
8. The Ex A .2 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 11.5.2004 caused for the complainant on the opposite party demanding the refund of said FDR amount with interest and notice charges of Rs.100/-.
9. The Ex B.2 letter of the opposite party to the complainant requires the complainant to furnish the said FDR of Rs.4,000/- as cautionary deposit in favour of opposite party ( E.E. (Housing) AP Housing Board, Kurnool ) at the time of transferring the sale deed of the said house towards further enhancement of land costs . The contents of Ex A.2 legal notice of the complainant, also says the said FDR of Rs. 4,000/- was given to the opposite party as insisted as security deposit before to Registration of said house in his favour. Hence, it remains admitted by the complainant that the said FDR in original of Ex A.1 was furnished by the complainant as security deposit to meet the further enhancement of land costs.
10. The Ex B.3 is the agreement for sale of independent house. It is a bi-lateral agreement executed on 4th June 1992 both by the complainant and the opposite party subjecting themselves to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. In stipulation No. 16 appearing in Page No.3 of the Ex B.3 the complainant as purchaser under takes by agreeing to pay any increase in the cost of price as has been fixed by the Chairman, arising out of the increase in compensation of land which is to be decided herein after, within a month of demand made, in equated installments as by fixed by the chairman. In stipulation of No. 17 of Ex B.3 the complainant agreed to pay any increase in the estimated cost price, as has been fixed by the chairman within a month of demand, in equated installments fixed by the chairman.
11. The Ex B.4 statement showing the area calculation to houses/plots under phase I,II and III of APHB Colony, Adoni, shows the enhanced land compensation paid by Andhra Pradesh Housing Board as Rs.39,02,852/- for a total area 1,57,011.00 Sq yards and the rate worked out thereon per each Sq. yard as Rs. 24.86p. and the total amount worked out at that rate for each house of 266.66 square yards area of 259/- MIG houses of phase II, as Rs.6,224/- and the balance to be colleted from the complainant an alotte of one of said house, as Rs. 406/- after adjustment of the Rs.5,301/- maturity amount of Ex A.1 by 27.6.2003 and Rs, 923/- earned as interest at 9.5% per annum from 27.06.2003 to 30.4.2005 on renewed FDR.
12. As stated in the afore said paras, as the complainant in bound to pay the difference of enhanced compensation as per stipulation in Ex B.3 and the said FDR in the Original of Ex A.1 was admittedly taken as security deposit for meeting that contingency of enhancement of land compensation and when the amount due form the complainant exceeds the FDR amount given a security/ cautionary deposit, the complainant is not remaining entitled for demanding the refund of said FDR and hence his grievance for refund of the FDR amount is remaining without any merit and bonafidies worthy of consideration especially when the opposite party was magnanimous enough in renewing the mature amount of the Ex A.1 FDR by obtaining Ex B.1 renewed FDR for a maturity amount of Rs. 6,026/- payable on 27.12.2005 and adjustment of said prospective mature amount of Rs. 6026/- form the due amount and showing a residuary balance of Rs.406/- only from the complainant and there by established his bonafidies to the benefit of the complainant there appears no proper cause of action to the complainant’s case against the opposite party and there by there remains any merit and force in the claim of the complainant and there by any of his entitleness to the claim made making liable the opposite party.
13. Consequently, there appears neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the opposite parties conduct of retaining the said FDR earlier taken as security/ cautionary deposit to meet the enhanced land cost on account of land acquit on proceedings and in renewing the said FDR to the benefit of the complainant and there by there remains any deficiency of service on part of opposite party for which he should hold liability, the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictation to the Stenographer Typed to dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Bench this the 15th day of September, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite party
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Is the Xerox copy of Term Deposit Receipt of Co-Operative Bank,
Sadapura for maturity amount of Rs.5,301/- dated 27.6.2003.
Ex A.2 Office copy of legal notice dated 11.5.2004 addressed to The Executive
Engineer A.P.H.B, Kurnool.
Ex A.3 Letter dated 19.6.2000 of Executive Engineer (Housing), Kurnool to
Complainant S. Noorulla Sahib, Adoni receiving FDR for an amount of
Rs.4,000/-.
List of Exhibits marked for opposite party:-
Ex B.1 Original personal FD (Term deposit receipt) Renewal deposit No.
KCC/01/00026, maturity value an amount of Rs.6,026/-.
Ex B.2 Letter dt 21.8.1997 fixed deposit receipt in favour of Executive Engineer
(Housing), A.P.H.B, Kurnool.
Ex B.3 Agreement for sale of Independent house, dt 4.6.1992.
Ex B.4 Xerox copy of statement of area calculation to houses/plots under
phase I,II and III, A.P.H.B Colony, Adoni.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
- Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
