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
Tuesday, 14th June 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 91 / 2015
Sri T. Narsimha Reddy, aged 64 years,
S/o Late T. Bayya Reddy, H.No. 36/140 G,
Anjaneya Street, S.N. Colony, Rayachoty,
YSR District, Pin – 516 269. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The State Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary to Govt. Housing Department,
A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
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. ….. opposite parties / Respondents.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 6-6-2016 in the presence of Sri B. Bhaskar, Advocate for Complainant 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 for refund of his initial advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest from the date of payment by him and for other reliefs.
2. The averments of complaint in brevity are that, regarding allotment of developed plot (house) in phase – II at Aananda Nilaya Township at Rayachoty by A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd., i.e. Respondents 1 to 3 an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid towards initial advance vide cheque bearing No. 018065, dt. 15-11-2010 to A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd., and the same was acknowledged by receipt dt. 22-11-2010. The amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- includes Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the Complainant and C. Mahidhara Reddy, son – in – law of the Complainant. Subsequently, the son-in-law of the Complainant was allotted house site and his Rs. 1,00,000/- was adjusted towards amount to be paid for house site. Regarding Rs. 1,00,000/- amount paid by the Complainant, the same was not refunded to him. Though the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 11, Housing (H.B-1) department dt. 22-6-2013 allowed for refund of the deposit along with interest at 12% where the projects are not taken up. The Complainant had been in touch with the Respondents right from 17-2-2011, made correspondence by way of letters for refund of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- but he has neither replied nor refunded the amount. Hence, the complaint for the refund of amount.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter denying the allegations of the Complainant regarding refund of amount as pleaded by him. However, the Respondents admitted that they received cheque bearing No. 018065 as token advance presented by Complainant and his son-in-law, believing their words that they would get membership. But subsequently the Complainant’s son-in-law got membership and plot was allotted to him and the Complainant voluntarily stated that he is not interest to purchase the plot and informed R3 that he is going to waive Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Complainant has not followed the norms for allotment of plot in classic category. Thus the amount paid by the Complainant is insufficient to get the membership so it is liable to be forfeited. There is no correspondence between the Complainant and Respondents. Since so many applicants were withdrawn from membership after finishing work up to roof level. The Respondents Corporation sustained loss and the G.O.Ms. No. 11 was passed for refund of the amount to the members. Since, the Complainant is not member he is not eligible for refund of advance amount. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Respondents as prayed for?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A7 documents are marked. On behalf of Respondents no documents are marked.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. Point No. 1. It is contended that the Complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cheque as initial advance to allot one plot to him and one plot C. Mahidar Reddy and the same was received by the Respondents corporation and C. Mahidhar Reddy was allotted plot and adjusted Rs. 1,00,000/- whereas no plot was allotted to him or refunded his amount. Therefore, he is entitled for refund of advance amount paid by him with interest.
8. Per contra learned counsel for Respondents contended that the Complainant waived to claim the initial advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- as he failed to pay further amounts. So he is not entitled for refund of amount as he is waiver.
9. In this case there is no dispute that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000//- was deposited by the Complainant for allotment of plot to him and no plot was allotted to him by the Respondents, though received Rs. 1,00,000/- from him by way of cheque on 15-11-2010. The Respondents admitted for receiving of cheque No. 018065 from Complainant and his son-in-law for Rs. 2,00,000/- on 15-11-2010 towards initial amount for one plot to the Complainant and another plot to C. Mahidhar Reddy. C. Mahidhar Reddy, son-in-law of Complainant was allotted plot and Rs. 1,00,000/- was adjusted towards plot cost. But the Complainant was not allotted the plot nor refunded his amount. Through the Respondents contended that the Complainant voluntarily reported that he is not interested in purchasing plot and waived for refund of initial amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. But, except pleading no supporting evidence has been placed by the Respondents to prove the same. Hence, the Respondents failed to prove that the Complainant waived his claim to refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Respondents. On the other hand the correspondence under Ex. A2 to A7 shows that the Respondents addressed letters for refund of the amount. But the advance amount was not refunded. Therefore, the Complainant who deposited initial advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Respondents corporation for allotment of house plot and the Respondents failed to allot plot and the G.O.Ms. No. 11 was issued as per Ex. A3 on 22-6-2013 for refund of amount with interest to the depositors where the projects are not taken up for consideration, We hold that the Complainant is entitled for refund of his initial advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid to the respondents with interest. Accordingly, point is answered.
10. Point No. 2. In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)(the advance paid by the Complainant) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 15-11-2010 till realization and shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- toward costs of the complaint to the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 14th June 2016
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of the receipt No. Nil dt. 22-11-2010 issued by APRSCL.
Ex.A2 P/c of my correspondence with different officials of the corporation-
12 nos. ( Twelve).
Ex.A3 Copy of G.O.Ms. No.11, Housing (HB-1), Department dt. 22-6-2013.
Ex.A4 Regd. Postal slip dated 17-4-2014 and acknowledgement card.
Ex.A5 Regd. Postal slip dated 18-6-2015 and acknowledgement card.
Ex.A6 DTDC courier service receipt dated 3-1-2013 and 4-1-2013 and receipt.
Ex.A7 DTDC courier service acknowledgement receipt dated 8-1-13 and 9-1-13.
Exhibits marked on Respondents:-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri B. Bhaskar, Advocate for Complainant.
2) Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for Respondents.
B.V.P
