Revision petitioners (OPs before the District Forum) have challenged the order of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.433/2012 in which the order of the District Forum, Visakhapatnam has been confirmed, with reduction in the quantum of compensation awarded. Both have directed the OP/RP to either register the plot in favour of the complainant or to refund the price with interest and compensation.
2. The matter in the consumer dispute pertains to booking of a plot by the father of the Complainant in a residential venture of the OPs. The registration for the same was made on 18.3.1998 with initial payment of Rs.1000/-. This was followed by payment of Rs.68,200/- towards cost of the site and Rs.5800/- towards registration charge on 7.7.2002. Complainant’s father died in 2004 leaving the Complainant as a sole legal representative. It was alleged that despite repeated demands and payment of full price as above, the plot was not registered in the name of the purchaser. On the other hand, a further demand towards development charge was made on 23.7.2009.
3. We have considered the records and heard Mr. G.V.R. Choudary, counsel for the petitioners.
4. The case of the OPs was that they were forced by the concerned statutory authorities to pay additional development charges in 2007 and 2008. Payments received from the complainant were only tentative and subject to revision of development charges.
5. On this issue, the District Forum has held that—
“No doubt condition No.11 of the Passbook to some extent shows that the prospective purchasers of the plot should bear additional development charges. Except pleading that in all the Opposite party paid Rs.44,79,800/- in two installments towards conversion to the Statutory authorities, there is no material placed by the Opposite party to make a demand for Rs.1,450/- per sq. yd, where the original development charges fixed were only Rs.65/-. The total payment made by the complainant was by 2002 itself and the scheme itself was started in 1998. One cannot understand the inordinate delay of nearly 10 years in developing the layout and obtaining the approval from competent authorities. That itself would indicate lapses on the part of the Opposite party, in making prompt development of the layout and paying necessary charges as and when demanded. Though the pricing of the plot cannot be treated as a Consumer dispute, being an established principle of law, the Opposite party cannot be permitted to levy the penalty upon the consumer for its own lapses and laxity in pursuing the approval of layout. Thus in our view, there is absolutely no justification for the Opposite party to demand Rs.1450/- as development charges while the original demand was only for Rs.65/- per sq.yd.”
6. The State Commission, as already noted, agreed with the view taken above. It has observed that—
“In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified only with respect to reducing the amount of compensation awarded from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- If the second alternative of refunding the amount is chosen while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum.” 7. One of the grounds raised in the revision petition is that the complainant was only a ‘prospective allottee’ and therefore not a ‘consumer’. This is a strange argument. Records show that the relationship between the two sides did not stop at acceptance of the initial deposit of Rs 1000. It went further to demand by RP/OP of sital value as well as registration charge and acceptance of the same from the complainant. Therefore this argument is rejected at the threshold itself. 8. The contentions raised in the consumer complaint were not disputed by the OPs. Their written response before the District Form merely calls them ‘not entirely true’ but without any attempt to explain why and to what extent the claim should be treated as untrue. The District Forum has categorically observed that the Ops did not file any documents. Further, there is no explanation why the booking was accepted and payments towards cost of the plot and the house, even including the registration charges, were accepted years before the layout was approved by the concerned authorities.
9. It is also contended by the RP/OP that the fora below have ignored the fact that under the agreement between the parties, the respondent/complainant had an obligation to pay. However, it does not show what evidence was placed before the District Forum in this behalf. On the contrary, the District Forum has categorically observed in para 3 of its order that “The Opposite party did not choose to file any documents including the copy of the approved plan.”
10. We therefore find no merit in this revision petition. It is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. | 
