BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM : KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 4th day of July, 2005
C.D.No.80/2005
G. Kushal Prasad (minor),
Rep by its next friend father
Dr G. Bhavani Prasad,
S/o. Chinna Obulappa, Plot No.4,
Doctors Colony,
Kurnool. . .. Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director,
M/s G.P.R Housing Private Ltd,
G. Punna Rao, 5th floor,
Babu Khan Estate,
Basheer Bag, Hyderabad.
2. The Manager,
G.P.R Housing Private Ltd,
119, Prakasam Road,
Town Club Circle,
Tirupati. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 28.6.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri A.Ramasubba Reddy, Advocate for complainant and opposite parties set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R E D R
(As per Smt C.Prethi, Member)
1 This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to execute registered sale deed of two plots measuring 400Sq.Yds in Padamavathi Gardnes laid in Pudipatla Village and Mallavaram Village or to pay market value of Rs. 4,50,000/- or the original price paid by the complainant for the said plots with 24% interest per annum from 5.1.2000 till realization, Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is minor aged above 14 years represented by his father. The opposite parties developed a land in Pudipatla and Mallavaram Village at the outskirts of Thirupathi under the name and style of Sri Padmavathi Gardens and laid plots in an area of about 200 acres, the opposite parties appointed agents for motivating the consumer to purchase the plots in Padmavathi Gardens. One V.Dharni Kumar agent of opposite parties came to Kurnool and approached the complainant and requested to join as a number of their scheme. Attracted by the said scheme the complainant acquired house plots and opposite parties offered two units consists of two plots each measuring 400 Sq.Yds at the rate of RS. 4,02,676/-. For two units and the complainant paid Rs. 400/- as admission fee and Rs. 18,000/- for each unit for reserving the plots bearing No. 1653 and 1675. On the same day Rs. 6,000/- for each unit was collected by the said agent towards subscription and issued passbooks bearing Nos. 498,499 and 528, 529 and agreed to pay Rs. 3,600/- per month per unit and the agent of opposite parties colleted monthly installments from the complainant at Kurnool. On 9.5.1998 the opposite parties sent a agreement duly executed by their representative by name G.Kiran Kumar to Kurnool through their agent for acknowledging terms agreed upon and also sent printed plan giving topographical features of Sri Padmavathi Gardens and the complainant acknowledged the same on 12.5.1998. By 5.1.2000 an amount of Rs. 2,00,200/- was collected by opposite parties agent and subsequently there was novation of contract and agreement only for one unit consisting of two plots measuring 400Sq.Yds each and transferred the amount paid for two units to one unit.
3. Thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite parties to execute registered said deed in his favour and the opposite party No.2 wrote a letter dt 22.12.2003 stating that there was a revision of road width asper the direction of the urban development authority and layout was obtained for two phases and third phases is pending with regard to the width of the roads and assured the completion of approval of layout by February, 2004 and allotment of plots in the month of February, 2004 and thereafter the opposite parties are not coming forward to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. Hence, there is deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in not executing registered sale deed even though total consideration is paid by the complainant and complainant is ready to pay any amount due to the opposite parties in executing the sale deed.
4. In support of his complaint the complainant relied upon the following documents marked as Ex A.1 to A.11, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its complaint avernemtns.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum the opposite parties did not appear and remained exparte.
6. Hence point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the case of deficiency on the part of the opposite parties towards him entitle him for the reliefs sought:-
7. It is a simple case of the complainant alleging on opposite parties for not executing registered sale deed in his favour even after payment of consideration by the complainant. The complainant’s side relied on the documentary record in Ex A.1 to A.11.
8. The Ex A.1 are the subscription receipts bearing Nos. 466 and 468 for the group S.P.G dated 28.4.1998, and the passbooks numbers mentioned in the said receipts are 528,529 and 498, 499. It also envisage the receipt of Rs. 18,000/- each towards reservation from Gujjala Kushal Prasad (complainant) for reserving plot Nos. 1653 and 1675. The Ex A.2 are the admission fee receipts dated 28.4.1998 for the group S.P.G and pass books bearing No. 528, 529 and 498, 499 are mentioned, it envisages receipt of Rs. 400/- from Gujjala Kushal Prasad (complainant) towards admission fee. The Ex A.3 are the receipts, in 22 numbers, it envisages the costs paid for plot No. 1653 totaling in Rs. 86,200/-. The Ex A.4 is the receipt in 21 numbers, it envisages the costs paid for plot No. 1675 totaling in Rs. 78,000/-.
9. The Ex A.5 is the agreement dt 19.3.1998 between the opposite parties representative by name G.Kiran Kumar and the complainant G.Kushal Prasad for agreeing to sale house plots numbers 1653 and 1673 in Sri Padmavathi Gardens to P. Gujjala Kushal Prasad, it also envisages the receipt of Rs. 12,000/- towards installment and Rs. 36,000/- towards reservation and also makes a mention of its receipt numbers. The Ex A.6 is the letter dt 17.2.2000 of V. Dharani Kumar ( Collection Assistant ) to the complainant it envisages the receipt of passbooks bearing No.s 498, 499 to transfer it, to passbooks No.s 528,529 as on 6.1.2000. The Ex A.7 is the letter dt 2.9.2000 of opposite party No.2 to the complainant admitting the payment of Rs. 2,00,200/- by the complainant towards of plots in Sri Padmavati Gardens . The Ex A.8 is the letter dt 22.12.2002 of opposite party to the complainant seeking further time for registration of plots till February, 2004. The Ex A.9 is the office copy of lawyer’s notice dt 6.4.2005 of complainant’s counsel to opposite parties, the same grievances such as non registering the plots in favour of the complainant as promised by the opposite party in Ex A.8, by February, 2004 and there by alleges deficiency of service on part of opposite parties. The Ex A.10 and 11 are the postal acknowledgment of opposite parties for receipt of Ex A.9, lawyer’s notice. The facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 to A.11 and the complainant avernemnts and complainant sworn affidavit avernments in reiteration of its case are neither denied nor rebutted by opposite party and hence their appears every bonafidies in the claim of the complainant.
10. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in not executing registered sale deed in favour of the complainant nor returning the amount paid by the complainant towards said plots, a part from not keeping up in its promise. Thus the said lapsive conduct of opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant consumer and there by the grievances the complainant are covered under C.P. Act and there arises liability on part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is entitled to the relief sought in the complaint and costs as a complainant was driven by the opposite parties to the Forum for redressal.
11. Therefore, in the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs. 2,00,200/- with 12% interest from 2.9.2000 till realization along with Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the complaint, within a month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 4th day of July, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIS OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite parties
Ex A.1is the subscription receipts
bearing No. 466 for Rs. 18,000/- -Nil-
and 468 for Rs. 18,000/-dated 28.4.98.
Ex A.2 is the admission fee receipts
No. 287 dt 28.4.98 for Rs. 400/-and
No. 288 dt 28.4.98 for Rs. 400/-.
Ex A.3 is the subscription receipts
In 22 numbers bearing pass book No. 528,529
for total amount of Rs.86,200/-.
Ex A.4 is the subscription receipts
In 21 numbers bearing pass book No. 498,499
for total amount of Rs. 78,000/-.
Ex A.5 is the agreement dt 19.3.98.
Ex A.6 is the letter dt 17.2.2000 of
V.Dharani Kumar to the complainant.
Ex A.7 is the letter dt 2.9.2000 of opposite
Party No.2 to the complainant.
Ex A.8 is the letter dt 22.12.2002 of
Opposite party to the complainant.
Ex A.9 issued by the lawyer’s notice
Dt 6.4.2005 of complainant’s counsel
to opposite parties.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
