C.C.No: 250/2008

BETWEEN:
Guddanti Varalakshmi,
W/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 50 years,
R/o Ammanabrolu village,
Naguluppalapadu Mandal,
Prakasam District. ... Complainant.

Vs.

M/s. Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pasumalai Complex, 1st Floor,
5/1, Arundel Pet, Guntur. …Opposite party.

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: SMT. B. PADMAVATHI,
ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: SMT. B. BINDU,
ADVOCATE, GUNTUR.

This complaint is coming on 04.03.2009 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this Forum delivered the following:
ORDER:
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite party to pay Rs.13,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from 30.04.1999 till realization and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of litigation.

2. The averments in the complaint are as follows: The complainant joined as a subscriber in Sai Mayuri Housing scheme run by the opposite party for purchase of a house plot of 200 sq. yards for Rs.45,000/-. The same is payable in 40 installments. The complainant paid Rs.13,000/- in 10 installments through the agent by name B.Pulla Rao appointed by the opposite party. There after nobody came from the opposite party to receive the balance amount. The complainant approached the official of the opposite party and asked him to receive the balance and deliver possession of plot to her. But there was no response from him. It is purely due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint for refund of the amount.

4. The opposite party filed his counter contending as fallows: It is true that the complainant joined as a member in Sai Mayuri Group for purchase of 200 sq. yards plot for Rs.45,000/-. The complainant after joining in the scheme paid only Rs.13,000/- by 06.09.2001 and there after she stopped payment of installments. The complainant never approached nor visited the opposite party office for refund of the amount or for any relief. The last payment was made by the complainant in September 2001. The claim has to be made within 2 years as stipulated under the act and as such the claim of the complainant is time barred. Further the complainant has paid only a meager amount and hence there is no continuous cause of action and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. On behalf of the complainant Exs.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked. The Ex.A1 is the Passbook and Ex.B2 is the Bunch of the Receipts 10 in number. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party.

6. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs in the complaint.

7. It is not in dispute that the complainant joined as member in Sai Mayuri Housing Scheme run by the opposite party for purchase of a plot measuring 200 sq. yards for Rs.45,000/- and the same is payable in 40 installments. The complainant paid Rs.13,000/- in 10 installments.

8. The case of the complainant is that the agent appointed by the opposite party used to come to her and collect installments and after receiving 10th installment no agent of the opposite party came to receive installments. It is her further case that she approached the opposite party and requested to receive installments and deliver possession of the plot to her. But there was no response from the opposite party and hence she filed the case for refund of the amount paid by her.

9. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant never approached the opposite party for paying installments or for refund of money. He further argued that last payment was made in the year 2001 and since the claim for refund is not made within two years from the date of last payment, the claim is barred by limitation and prayed the court to dismiss the complaint.

10. In a case relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant reported in 2005 (2) CPR 1 (NC), it was held that: “It is not in dispute that till date neither possession has been given nor the money has been refunded as demanded by the complainants from the petitioner, hence as rightly held by the District Forum, the cause of action continues and we are in full agreement with this. Since this was a continuous case of action in the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said to be barred by limitation.”

11. The complainant in her complaint specifically stated that inspite of demands nobody came to receive the neither installments nor delivered plot to her. In view of the specific pleading and the decision relied upon by the complainant I am of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid by her.

12. In the result, petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.13,000/- and also to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within One month from the date of order, failing which the amount carries interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.