BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Monday, 22nd August 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 43/ 2016
Immareddy Munikumar Reddy, S/o I. Pedda Muni Reddy,
aged about 50 years, Hindu, R/o D.No. 2/106, Buddayapalle,
Proddatur town and Mandal, Kadapa District, A.P. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Managing Director, A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd.,
7th Floor, Gagan Vihar Apartments, M.J. Road, Nampally,
Hyderabad, Pin – 500 001.
2. The General Manager, A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd.,
D.No. 6/700-1, Bharath Scouts & Guides, Sankarapuram,
YSR Kadapa, Pin – 516 001. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 16-8-2016 in the presence of complainant in person and Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 1,43,200/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 28-11-2013 till payment and also pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant applied for allotment of house site at A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited, Proddatur project and paid an amount of Rs. 3,000/- and allotted an application. Regarding allotment of Semi Developed plot (house site) at Brahma Nilya Town ship at Proddatur by respondents the complainant has paid Rs. 70,100/- on 28-11-2013 vide D.D No. 114127 towards first installment and Rs. 70,100/- on 31-1-2014 vide D.D. No. 114268 towards 2nd installment. Thus totally paid Rs. 1,43,200/- to the respondents including registration fee and application. The Complainant prepared to pay next installment to the R2 but he was informed to him that some of the erstwhile land owners of the township was approached the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble High Court issued stay orders on 28-2-2014 and the stay could not be vacated, even after laps of 1 year 4 months. R2 could not informed about the stage of the payment of remaining installments. Then the complainant approached 2nd respondent several times for refund of his amount but not refunded and finally requested by way of letters dt. 9-5-2016 for refund of his amount but not refunded. Though R2 addressed a letter to R1 to accord sanction to refund installments paid by the customers but not sanctioned. The R1 also not refunded the amount. Hence, this complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Respondents 1 & 2 filed common counter admitting the complainant applied for house site at Bramha Nilayam Township at Proddatur under the scheme of Respondents and paid Rs. 1,40,200/- vide demand drafts on the respective dates as pleaded by the Complainant. It is further contended that the Complainant is willful defaulter he did not pay the installments regularly in spite of intimated by the Respondents. The Complainant has voluntarily stated that he is not interested to purchase the plot and is going to wave amount of Rs. 1,40,200/-. It is further contended that since the Complainant is middle dropper the corporation is entitled to deduct 10% of amount paid by the applicants. Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent and Complainant is not entitled for refund of advance amount of Rs. 1,40,200/- with interest and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents as claimed by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the respondents?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A9 documents are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of the Respondents.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material placed on record by the parties.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. There is no dispute between the parties in this case that the complainant is one of the applicant for the plot i.e. house site offered by the respondents at Bramha Nilaya Township, Proddatur and he deposited total amount of Rs. 1,43,200/- in two installments.
8. It is contended by the complainant that inspite of paid two installments by him the respondents have not allotted the plot nor refunded the amount as they could not allotted the plot. It is further contended that the respondents refunded the amount to some of the customers with interest but refused to refund the amount to him. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Hence, he is entitled for refund of amount as claimed and also for mental agony and costs.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for Respondents as the Complainant is defaulter in payment of installments, plot could not be allotted to him and is not entitled for refund of amount.
10. There is force in the contention of complainant in this case to hold that the respondents are liable to refund the amount of Rs. 1,43,200/- to the Complainant with interest. The Respondents have refunded the amount of some of the customers who applied for the plots and not allotted but failed to refund the amount of Complainant herein. For example the Respondents refunded installments amount paid by them to the applicants with interest in C.S. Nos. 6/2015, 7/2015, 8/2015, 9/2015, 10/2015, 11/2015, 12/2015, and 27/2015 filed in this forum. But admittedly the Respondents failed to refund the amount of Complainant which was paid by him in two installments by way of demand drafts at Rs. 70,100/- on 26-11-2013 and Rs. 70,100/- on 25-12-2014. The contention of Respondents for not refunding the amount to the Complainant is that the Writ Petition was pending and the Complainant failed to pay the installment, but the said contention that the Complainant not paid installments amount does not correct. In spite of Writ Petition was pending in C.C. Nos. 6/2015, 7/2015, 8/2015, 9/2015, 10/2015, 11/2015, 12/2015, and 27/2015 Respondents refunded the amount deposited by the Complainant in those cases with interest. Therefore, the contention of Respondent cannot be upheld. The Complainant is middle dropper and willfully waved to claim the advance amount of Rs. 1,43,200/- paid by him. As per Ex. A3 Respondent gave representation for refund of his amount had he voluntarily waived to claim the amount he would not be issued Ex. A8 representation to R2 for refund of his amount. Therefore, we hold that the Respondent failed to allot plot as offered by them in spite of two installments paid by the Complainant nor refunded the amount. Therefore, we see there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent for not refunding the amount to the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 1,40,200/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 70,100/- on 28-11-2013 and Rs. 70,100/- on 31-01-2014 till realization and Rs. 3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. However, the complainant is not entitled for refund of registration fee and application fee which are non-refundable. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
11. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents to refund Rs. 1,40,200/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand and two hundred only) i.e. Rs. 70,100/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 28-11-2013 and Rs. 70,100/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 31-01-2014 i.e. date of deposits by him till realization and shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant. The respondents shall pay the above amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 22nd August 2016
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of payment two receipts for Rs. 70,100/- and Rs. 70,100/-
dt. 28-11-2013 and 31-1-2014.
Ex. A2 P/c of esava receipt amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards processing fee.
Ex. A3 P/c of esava receipt amount of Rs. 250/- dt. 18-4-2007.
Ex. A4 P/c of RSCL information system.
Ex. A5 P/c of declaration certificate of no house affidavit.
Ex. A6 P/c of declaration certificate (voters Iden. Card. Phase – II).
Ex. A7 P/c of affidavit of I. Muni Kumar Reddy, dt. 28-11-2013.
Ex. A8 P/c of letter No. 17272/GM(P)/APRSCL/Kadapa/2013, dt. 26-10-2013.
Ex. A9 P/c of letter from Complainant to R2, dt. 9-5-2016.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents : - NIL
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Immareddy Munikumar Reddy, S/o I. Pedda Muni Reddy,
R/o D.No. 2/106, Buddayapalle, Proddatur town and Mandal,
Kadapa District, A.P
2) Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for Respondents.
B.V.P
