COMPLAINT FILED: 27.07.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 19.12.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 19th DECEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1753/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. B.Rama Rao,<br /> S/o Late K.Bhogi Rao,<br /> Aged 63 years,<br /> R/at No.234, 3rd Cross,<br /> Jayanthinagar, Horamavu,<br /> Bangalore – 560 043. <br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. V.Rangaraju<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s VGP Investments,<br /> VGP Square. Saidapet,<br /> Chennai – 600 015.<br /> <br /> 2. Mr. Jayaseelan,<br /> M/s VGP Housing (P) Ltd.,<br /> No.17/1, II Street,<br /> Perumalpuram,<br /> Tirunelveli – 7 (T.N).<br /> <br /> 3. Mr. Mohan Das,<br /> Sales Manager,<br /> M/s VGP Housing (P) Ltd.,<br /> ‘Victory Plaza’, No.87/16,<br /> 30th Cross, 7th Main, 4th Block,<br /> Jayanagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 011.<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of CP Act 1986, by the complainant, seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to register the plot or to award compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with costs on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in this complaint are as fallows: <br /> <br /> Complainant being a senior citizen and a BPL card holder became the member of the scheme launched by the OP company who in turn dealing with formation of layout and selling of plots on investments basis and invested a sum of Rs.17,551/- on different dates from 06.01.1996 vide account No.VGP/1/2425 dated 06.01.1996 towards plot No.454, VGP Gnanathiraviyam Town, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. The OP-1 has collected entire amount and issued the cash receipt dated 01.07.1998. When complainant approached the OP-3 and enquired, OP-3 issued letter dated 05.10.2007 to OP-2 with a direction to arrange for registration of plot No.454 in VGP, Gnanathiraviyam Town. The OP No.3 instructed complainant to go to Tirunelveli on 21.10.2007 for registration. The complainant visited OP-2 at Tirunelveli on 21.10.2007, who in turn directed complainant to meet OP-1 at Chennai. Complainant met OP-1, who in turn directed the complainant to go to Tirunelveli after one month for registration. Since 22.10.2007 complainant visited OPs-1 to 3 several times there is no response from OPs. Hence complainant got issued legal notice on 02.05.2009. Inspite of service of notice there is no response from OPs 1 to 3. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Under the circumstances he was advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs. <br /> <br /> 3. On registration of the complaint notices were sent to OPs 1 to 3. Inspite of service of notices to OPs 1 to 3 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence Ops 1 to 3 placed exparte. <br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents OPs did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. <br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that he became the member of the scheme conducted by the OP company and invested a sum of Rs.17,551/- on different dates from 06.01.1996 to 25.03.2004 vide account No.VGP/1/2425 dated 06.01.1996 to purchase a plot bearing No.454, VGP, Gnanathiraviyam Town, Thirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. The OP has collected the entire cost of the plot and issued acknowledgement dated 01.07.1998. The pass book extract and receipt issued by OP are produced. Further the letter issued by OP-3 dated 05.10.2007 clearly states that OP-2 has to make a necessary arrangement for registration and complainant has paid full amount towards the cost of the plot. As per the instructions of OP-2 complainant met OP-1 at Chennai. OP-1 directed the complainant to go to Tirunelveli after one month for registration. Complainant visited OPs 1 to 3 several times. Inspite of service, there was no response from OPs 1 to 3 to the legal notice issued by complainant. The copy of the reservation ticket, legal notice, postal acknowledgement are produced. <br /> 6. The non appearance of the OPs 1 to 3 even after due service of notice leads us to draw an inference that OPs 1 to 3 admits all the allegations made by the complaint. Even after accepting the entire cost of plot in the year 1998 itself. OPs failed to execute the register sale deed in favour of the complainant till date. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The documents produced by the complainant fully corroborate with complainant affidavit evidence. OPs 1 to 3 having not appeared and filed version, the evidence produced by the complainant stands un-controverted. We accept the evidence produced by the complainant and hold that retention of the amount by OPs for more than 9 years without registering the plot infavour of the complainant or returning the amount to complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. <br /> <br /> 7. We are satisfied that the complaint is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As per the letter dated 05.10.2007 issued by OP-3, OP-3 admits payment of full amount towards the cost of the plot in VGP Gnanthiraviyam Town and directed to OP-2 for making necessary arrangements for registration. Inspite of personal visit made by the complainant to OP-2 on 21.10.2007 at Thirunelveli, who in turn directed complainant to meet OP-1 at Chennai. Complainant met OP-1 who in turn directed complainant to approach OP-2 after one month for registration. Further even after service of legal notice dated 02.05.2009. OP deliberately failed to respond to the legal notice. This act of the OPs must have naturally caused mental harassment and sufferings to the complainant. Under circumstances complainant is entitled for some global compensation and guidance value of the site. In this case complainant has claimed Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation / damages, but the same is at a higher side, taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances we are of the view that complainant is entitled for registration of the plot or in alternative refund of amount with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. <br /> <br /> OPs 1 to 3 are directed to register plot No.454, in VGP, Gnanathiraviyam Town, Thirunelveli, Tamil Nadu at the cost of the complainant within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. <br /> <br /> Failing which OPs 1 to 3 are directed to refund Rs.17,551/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 01.07.1998 till realization and pay guidance value of the plot Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of December 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm<br /> <br />