This complaint coming for final hearing on 02-11-2015 in the presence of complainant in person and respondents also appeared in person 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. 7,81,200/- with interest @ 18% p.a., to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards court expenses.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the Government of Andhara Pradesh has launched a scheme for allotment of house and house plots in Ananda Nilaya township at Rayachoty, by A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd., represented by R1 through R2 and R3. The complainant purchased house measuring 150 Sq.yards in basic category in survey Nos. 1303, 1304 and 1305 by way of agreement of sale deed dt. 21-2-2011 executed by R3 on behalf of A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd., The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 3,250/- towards application and registration fee. The complainant also paid Rs. 2,80,000/- on the same day as advance for confirmation of R3. The complainant was allotted house No. 46 in basic category. The SBH Main branch Kadapa released two installments of loan of Rs. 3,36,000/- and Rs. 2,52,500/- on 22-2-2012 and 31-3-2012 respectively. Thus in total the complainant paid Rs. 8,68,000/-. The unit cost of the house is Rs. 11,20,000/-. The complainant paid more than 75% of the unit cost of the house. The Plot No. 46 was allotted during May 2011 at that time the house was completed up to the basement level and the construction was done up to 60% only by October 2013. But no infrastructure works like roads, drainage, electrification, water supply etc., were done. During consumers meeting held on 22-10-2013 the consumers expressed their displeasure as the customers are paying huge interest amounts to the banks for the loans sanctioned in addition to house rents paid by them. Hence, the customers decided to take over the semi-finished house as is where is condition and requested to R3. R3 raised final cost of the semi-finished building at Rs. 10,21,000/- as the building work was completed up to 60% only. The balance work was to be done up to 40% i.e. flooring and dadooing including stair case steps, S.S. railing for staircases, fixing of door shutter and NCL windows, Electrical wiring, Internal and External painting, water supply and internal and external painting final coat. All balance works will approximately cost of Rs. 4,00,000/- and above. Thus the final cost of the building approximately about Rs. 14,50,000/-. In view of abnormal delay in completing the building work the complainant paid huge interest to the banks and others for the amounts borrowed. So it became burden to her, as the building work is not completed. As the building work is not completed the bank authorities are not releasing balance loan amount. Under all these circumstances above the complainant requested R3 on 30-4-2014 by way of letter for refund of deposit amount of Rs. 7,81,200/- duly deducting Rs. 86,000/- i.e. 10% of amount paid by her. But R2 has not accorded orders so far for refund of amount. The Govt. also directed the corporation vide G.O.Ms. No. 11, Housing (BH-1), department, dt. 22-6-2013 to refund the registration deposits, confirmation advances etc., in full to the registered applicants in places where project were not taken up so far by deducting 10% of the unit cost or actual payment. Hence, this complaint for refund of the amount and other reliefs.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed common counter denying the allegations of the complainant. However, the respondents admitted the complainant applied for the house by deposing the amounts but contended the complainant committed default in payment of installment amount as per schedule on tentative cost. It is further contended since the complainant defaulted the complaint is not maintainable. The scheme was badly delayed and stopped and handed over the semi-finished house as is where is conditions and as requested by the complainant final cost fixed by the corporation at Rs. 10,21,000/- and the same was informed to the complainant. The R3 requested to R2 on 01-5-2014 by way of letter to consider the request of complainant to refund the amount as per corporation norms. But due to administrative reason and financial sanction is yet to be received. The corporation has taken up the houses with developmental works such as Roads, water supply external electrification, drainage main lines, septic tank, sump pump rooms with pumps etc., and spent huge amounts and some of the customers withdrawn from middle of the scheme. Thus caused huge loss to the corporation and caused delay in handing over the houses to the regular payment customers. As per G.O.Ms. No. 11, Housing (BH-1), Department, dt. 22-6-2013 government issued orders vide page No. 4 and para No. 11 as follows. Corporation is hereby permitted to waive eligibility criteria for allotment of houses / flats in APRSCL and to permit substitution of bookings wherever the original applicants requested for withdrawal and to refund to the original applicants on receipt of full payment from the substitute or after adjustment, with a nominal processing fee of 1% of the notified cost. 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 A7 documents are marked. No documents are filed by the respondents.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments filed by the complainant.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended by the complainant that though she was allotted H.No. 46 in basic category as is where is condition which is semi-finished building, but the respondents have not completed infrastructure works like roads, water supply external electrification, drainage main lines, septic tank, sump, pump rooms with pumps etc., Hence, she applied for refund amount and R2 also considered her request to refund the amount. But the respondents have not finalized the same sofar. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents as such the complainant is entitled for refund of her amount by deducting 10% on deposited amount.
8. On the other hand it is contended on behalf of the respondents that sine the complainant committed default in payment of installments so delay caused and corporation suffered huge loss, could not construct the houses and handed over the same. Hence, no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.
9. There is no dispute in this case that the complainant was one of the applicant for the house offered by the respondents at Rayachoty Ananta Nilya town ship and she paid Rs. 8,68,000/- and she was allotted a H.No. 46 which is semi-finished house, it is also not in dispute that the complainant borrowed amounts from bank and paid the same to the respondents. It is the specific case of complainant that though she was allotted house No. 46 in basic category which is semi-finished house but the respondents have not completed works of infrastructure such as roads, water supply external electrification, drainage main lines, septic tank, sump, pump rooms with pumps etc,. That is why it was not possible for complainant to complete the building of the remaining work and stay in it. Therefore, she applied for refund of the amount in view of the delay caused by the respondents for making such facilities. The respondents in their counter also admitted that there was delay in completion of the above works as the applicants not paid the installments as per terms and conditions in the agreement. It is further admitted by the respondents as follows. It is further informed that the Division office requested the Managing Director, APRSCL Hyderabad vide Lr. No. APRSCL/KDP/DGM/Rcty/2012 dt. 01-5-2014 to consider her i.e. complainant request to refund the amount as per corporation norms. Due to administrative reason and financial is yet to be received.
10. By the above admission of respondents in their counter it is clear that the complainant having vexed with the attitude of respondents in completing the infrastructure works she requested for refund of her amount as per norms by deducting 10% on deposit made by her and her request was considered by R2 and ordered for refund of the amount as per norms by deducting 10% on the deposit made by the complainant. In fact the complainant intended to forgo 10% on deposited amount and sought for refund of balance amount only from the respondents. Since the respondents also intended to refund amount but for administrative reasons and financial constraint the same was yet to be received by R3 from R2. Therefore, we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents for not making infrastructure developments at the site and refund the amount to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount deposited by her by deducting 10% on deposited amount. 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. 7,81,200/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighty one Thousand and two hundred only) i.e. (Rs. 8,68,000/- - Rs. 86,000/- = Rs. 7,81,000/-) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 31-7-2015 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 6th November 2015
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of application data sheet.
Ex. A2 P/c of payment receipts Nos. 3.
Ex. A3 P/c of complaint representation, dt. 30-4-2014.
Ex. A4 P/c of sale agreement, d. 21-2-2011.
Ex. A5 P/c of letter C.E.s memo No. 521/TC/Rayachoty, dt. 31-12-2013.
Ex. A6 P/c of General Manager letter, dt. 1-5-2014 address to the Managing
Director, APRSCL, Hyderabad.
Ex. A7 P/c of G.O.Ms. No. 11, Housing (H.B) Department, dt. 22-6-2013.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents : - NIL
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Smt. T. Vijaya, aged about 45 years, W/o Sri Srinivasa Reddy,
H.No. 45/97, Bose Nagar, Rayachoy, Kadapa - 516269
2) The State Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal
Secretary to Govt. Housing Department, A.P. Secretariat
Buildings, L Block, Room No. 113, Hyderabad – 01.
2) The Managing Director, A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation
Ltd., 7th Floor, Gagan Vihar Apartments, M.J. Road,
Nampally, Hyderabad, Pin – 500 001.
3) The General Manager, A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation
Ltd., D.No. 6/700-1, Bharath Scouts & Guides,
Sankarapuram, YSR Kadapa, Pin – 516 001.
B.V.P.
