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
Thursday, 27th October 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 52/ 2016
Smt. Kesigarla Kulayamma, W/o K. Kondanna,
Aged about 62 years, Hindu, R/at D.No. 3/67,
Jandamanu Street, Muddanur Town and Mandal,
Kadapa District. ………… 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 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 refund an amount of Rs. 73,350/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 2-2-2014 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 Brahma Nilya Town ship at Proddatur project proposed by Opposite parties corporation and the Complainant paid total Rs. 73,350/- on 2-2-2014 by way of cheque towards first installment, including registration fee and application fee.
3. The Complainant prepared to pay next installment to O.P.2 but she was informed that some of the erstwhile land owners of the proposed township have approached the Hon’ble High Court and obtained stay orders on 28-2-2014 and the stay could not be vacated, even after laps of 1 year. It is further averred that O.P.2 could not inform about the stage of payment of remaining installments. The Complainant approached O.P.2 for several times for refund of his amount but not refunded and finally requested O.P.2 by way of letter to refund installments amount paid by him though, the Complainant is entitled for return of the same. Hence, this complaint for the above reliefs.
4. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed common counter and denied the allegations regarding deficiency of service. However, admitted the Complainant paid Rs. 70,100/- towards first installment. It is further averred that the Complainant failed to pay further installments and is a defaulter. So the amount has been forfeited as she is voluntarily stated that she is not interested in purchasing the plot. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties and Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 250/- towards registration and application fee are not refundable. Hence, the coplaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. 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 Opposite parties as claimed by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the Opposite parties?
- To what relief?
6. No oral evidence reported by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A5 documents are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of the Opposite parties.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material placed on record by the parties.
8. Point Nos. 1 & 2. There is no dispute between the parties in this case that the complainant is one of the applicant for the house site offered by the Opposite parties at Bramha Nilaya Township, Proddatur and she deposited total amount of Rs. 73,350/- towards first installment including registration fee of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 250/- application fee.
9. It is contended by the complainant that in spite of paid first installment the Opposite parties have not allotted the plot stating that there was case pending in High Court or refunded the amount. She addressed a letters on 10-12-2014 and 9-7-2015 to the Opposite parties for return of her amount but not returned the same. Hence, she is entitled for refund of amount.
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for Opposite parties as the Complainant is defaulter in payment of installments, so the plot could not be allotted to her and no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties and Complainant is not entitled for refund of amount.
11. After going through the contentions of the parties we see force in the contention of Complainant in this case to hold that the Opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs. 70,100/- to the Complainant along with interest. The Opposite parties have refunded the amount to some of the customers who applied for the plots and not allotted but failed to refund the amount of Complainant herein. For example the Opposite parties 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. Opposite parties failed to refund the amount of Complainant which was paid by her at Rs. 70,100/- on 2-2-2014 by way of cheque. The contention of the Opposite parties for not refunding the amount to the Complainant is that a Writ petition was pending and the Complainant failed to pay the installments. But a perusal of the record shows the said contention that the Complainant failed to pay installments is not correct. In spite of Writ Petition was pending the Opposite parties refunded the amounts to the Complainants in C.C. Nos. 6/2015, 7/2015, 8/2015, 9/2015, 10/2015, 11/2015, 12/2015, and 27/2015 with interest, as they could not allotted plots to them. Therefore, the contention of Opposite parties cannot be countenanced. As seen from Exs. A4 and A5 the Complainant requested to O.P.2 to refund her amount of Rs. 70,100/- with interest but the Opposite parties have not refunded the amount. Therefore, we hold that the Opposite parties failed to allot plot as offered by them to the Complainant nor refunded the amount as requested by the Complainant. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties for not refunding the amount to the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant is entitled Rs. 70,100/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realization and also 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.
12. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite parties to refund Rs. 70,100/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand one hundred only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from 02-2-2014 i.e. date of deposit by the Complainant 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 Opposite parties 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 27th October 2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of cheque No. 794901, dt. 2-2-2014 for an amount of Rs. 73,350/-.
Ex. A2 P/c of affidavit of Kesigarla Kulayamma, dt. 7-2-2014.
Ex. A3 P/c of letter from Complainant to O.P. 1, dt. 21-2-2015.
Ex. A4 P/c of letter dt. 10-12-2014 from the Complainant to the G.M.A.P.R.S.C.L.,
Kadapa.
Ex. A5 P/c of letter dt. 9-7-2015 from the Complainant to the G.M.A.P.R.S.C.L., Kadapa.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties : - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Smt. Kesigarla Kulayamma, W/o K. Kondanna, R/a D.No. 3/67,
Jandamanu Street, Muddanurtown and Mandal, Kadapa District.
2) Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties.
B.V.P
