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
Monday, 31st October 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 53/ 2016
Naradasari Ranemma, W/o Naradasari Chinna Obanna,
aged about 47 Years, Hindu, resident of D.No. 52/27-7,
Kothapeta, Ramapuram Road, Rayachoty Mandal,
YSR District, A.P. – 516269. ………… 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. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 24-10-2016 in the presence of Complainant as in person and Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties 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 Opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,48,250/- along with interest @ 12% from 8-10-2012 till payment and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- 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 is one of the applicant for allotment of plot at Anandanilaya Township, Rayachoty and she paid an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as registration fee on 29-11-2010 and semi developed plot house was allotted by the Opposite parties and the Complainant paid total amount of Rs. 18,13,250/- for plot No. 35, plot area of 200 Sq. yards, Plinth are is 1150 ft. on 12-5-2011. As per sale deed dt. 5-6-2014 the Opposite parties executed the same for Rs. 16,65,000/- only. Thus the Opposite parties received excess amount of Rs. 1,48,250/-. The excess amount of Rs. 1,48,250/- is refundable to her but inspite of letter dt. 21-01-2015 addressed o the Opposite parties for refund of excess amount the same was not refunded and dragging the matter on some pretext or other. Hence, this complaint for the above relifs.
3. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed common counter admitting the Complainant as one of the applicant and applied for allotment of house and paid Rs. 18,13,250/- and denied other allegations regarding refund amount of Rs. 1,48,250/- and deficiency of service on their part. It is further contended the agreement between the Complainant and the Opposite parties should cancelled after sale deed is obtained. There is no agreement to refund of amount between them. The Complaint is not maintainable. The Complainant is not entitled to recover the 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 there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties as claimed by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the Opposite parties?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A12 documents are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of the Opposite parties.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record and considered documents filed by the Complainant.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended by the Complainant that she had paid excess amount of Rs. 1,48,250/- to the Opposite parties as she paid Rs. 18,13,250/- instead of Rs. 16,65,000/- for which sale deed was executed by the Opposite parties in respect of house allotted to her. Therefore, she is entitled for refund of Rs. 1,48,250/- with interest and other reliefs claimed.
8. Per contra learned counsel for Opposite parties vehemently contended though the sale deed was obtained for Rs. 16,65,000/- the cost of the unit was Rs. 18,13,250/- and she paid the same and house was allotted to her and there was no agreement between the parties to refund the amount excess of sale deed. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties, as the Complainant voluntarily obtained sale deed for lesser amount. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. There is sufficient force in the contention of learned counsel for Opposite parties to hold that the Complaint is not maintainable and Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed and Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant has applied for allotment of semi developed plot (house site) by paying necessary registration fee and application on 29-11-2010 and she paid an amount of Rs. 18,13,250/- from time to time to allot semi finished house of 200 Sq.yards and finally on 5-6-2014 a sale deed was executed by the Opposite parties in favour of Complainant in respect of plot No. 35 for an extent of 200 Sq.yards with semi constructed house. As seen from copy of sale deed Ex. A6 the same was obtained by the Complainant for an amount of Rs. 16,65,000/-, though the value of unit is Rs. 18,10,000/-. But there is no agreement between the parties that the amount excess to the sale deed value is to be refunded to the Complainant. Though the Complainant stated that the Opposite parties agreed to refund the amount no clinging evidence has been palced bythe Complainant to prove that the Opposite parties agreed to pay the excess amount than the sale deed amount. Since the Complainant herself voluntarily came forward to obtain sale deed form the Opposite parties for lesser value than the amount paid by her under Ex. A6 she cannot claim the difference from the Opposite parties on the pretext that the Opposite parties promised to pay the difference or evading to pay the same. Since unit cost is Rs. 18,10,000/- she paid total amount of Rs. 18,13,000/- including registration fee to the Opposite parties. But the sale deed was obtained for lesser value for the obvious reasons known to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant cannot insist the Opposite parties for refund of amount as calculated by her. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 & 2 in this case and the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed against them. There is no merit in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered against the complainant.
11. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 31st October 2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of letter No. APRSCL/Kadapa/Allotment/2010-11, dt. 12-5-2011.
Ex. A2 P/c of letter from Complainant to O.P.2 dt. 21-1-2015.
Ex. A3 P/c of cheque bearing No. 157174, dt. 8-10-2012 for Rs. 3,57,000/-
of A.P.G. Bank.
Ex. A4 P/c of receipts (14 numbers) dt. 29-11-2010.
Ex. A5 P/c of RSCL information system issued in favour of Complainant,
dt. 19-11-2010.
Ex. A6 P/c of sale deed for Rs. 16,65000/- from Complainant to Opposite parties along with Aadharcard, Election commission of India I.D. card and P/c of house plot phots, dt. 5-6-2014.
Ex. A7 P/c of agreement of sale dt. 22-1-2011.
Ex. A8 P/c of application of N. Ranemma, dt. 28-12-2010.
Ex. A9 P/c of acceptance application No. 2009000408 of N. Ranemma, dt. 28-12-2010.
Ex. A10 P/c of affidavit and income certificate of N. Ranemma.
Ex. A11 P/c of house unit inventory list of plot No. 35, dt. 12-5-2011.
Ex. A12 P/c of intrinsic unit plan.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties : - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri Naradasari Ranemma, W/o Naradasari Chinna Obanna,
Resident of D.No. 52/27-7, Kothapeta, Ramapuram Road,
Rayachoty Mandal, YSR District, A.P. – 516269
2) Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties
B.V.P
