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. 47 / 2016
Yeddulu Uma Mallikarjuna Devarayulu,
S/o Y. Nagaiah, aged about 43 years,
Hindu, R/at D.No. 4/585, Superbazar Street,
Proddatur Town and Mandal,
YSR District – 516 361. ………… 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. 1,43,200/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 22-11-2013 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 Opposite parties corporation and paid an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards registration fee and Rs. 70,100/- on 22-11-2013 and Rs. 70,100/- on 23-01-2014 towards first and second installments by way of demand drafts to the Opposite parties.
3. The Complainant prepared to pay next installment to the O.P.2 but he 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 ½ 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, dt. 1-12-2014 for refund of installments amount paid by him and Complainant is entitled for return of the same. Hence, this complaint for the above reliefs.
4. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed common counter admitting that the complainant applied for house site at Bramha Nilayam Township at Proddatur under the scheme proposed by the Opposite parties and paid Rs. 1,40,200/- towards first and second installments and also Rs. 3,000/- towards registration fee but contended that the Complainant is willful defaulter, he did not pay the installments regularly in spite of intimated by the Opposite parties. The Complainant has voluntarily committed default in payment of installments. Therefore, claiming of interest and the application amount is unjust. Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled for refund of advance amount of Rs. 1,43,200/- with interest and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. 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?
6. No oral evidence reported by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A9 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 he deposited total amount of Rs. 1,43,200/- in two installments including registration fee of Rs. 3,000/-.
9. It is contended by the complainant that inspite of paid two installments paid by him the Opposite parties have not allotted the plot or refunded the amount as they could not allot the plot. He also contended that the Opposite parties refunded amount to some of the customers with interest but refused to refund amount to Complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties. Therefore, he is entitled for refund of amount as claimed and also for mental agony and costs.
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for Opposite parties as the Complainant is defaulter in payment of installments, plot could not be allotted to him 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 I see force in the contention of Complainant in this case to hold that the Opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs. 1,40,200/- 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.C. 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 him in two installments at Rs. 70,100/- on 22-11-2013 and Rs. 70,100/- on 23-01-2014 by way of D.Ds to the Opposite parties. 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 not paid installment amounts is not correct. In spite of Writ Petition was pending the Opposite parties refunded the amount 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 after filing of cases in this forum. Therefore, the contention of Opposite parties cannot be countenanced. As seen from Ex. A9, dt.01-12-2014 the Complainant requested O.P.2 to refund his amount of Rs. 1,40,200/- with interest but the Opposite parties have not refunded the amount, though they received instructions as per Ex. A8 for refund of amount. Therefore, I hold that the Opposite parties failed to allot plot as offered by them in spite of two installments paid by the Complainant or refunded the amount as requested by him, thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties for not refunding the amount to the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant is entitled Rs. 1,40,200/- 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. 1,40,200/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand and two hundred only) i.e. Rs. 70,100/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22-11-2013 and Rs. 70,100/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 23-1-2014 i.e. date of deposits 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 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 esava receipt amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards processing fee.
Ex. A2 P/c of letter from co to O.P.2 dt. 23-11-2013.
Ex.A3 P/c of D.D No. 074502, dt. 22-11-2013 for Rs. 70,100/-.
Ex.A4 P/c of D.D No. 076052, dt. 23-01-2014 for Rs. 70,100/-.
Ex. A5 P/c of letter fromm Complainant to O.P. No. 2 dt. 23-1-2014.
Ex. A6 P/c of letter No. 17272/GM(P)/APRSCL/kadapa/2013, dt. 26-12-2013 from O.P.2 to Complainant.
Ex. A7 P/c of affidavit issued by Notary, dt. 23-11-2013.
Ex. A8 P/c of letter No. 17272/GM(P)/APRSCL/kadapa/2013, dt. 26-10-2013 instructions issued by O.P.2.
Ex. A9 P/c of letter from Complainant to O.P.2 dt. 01-12-2014.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties : - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Yeddulu Uma Mallikarjuna Devarayulu, S/o Y. Nagaiah,
R/at D.No. 4/585, Superbazar Street, Proddatur Town and
Mandal, YSR District – 516 361
2) Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties.
B.V.P
