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
Monday, 23rd August 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 14/ 2016
Yarrapu Reddy Ravi Chandra Reddy, S/o Sankar Reddy,
age 40 years, Hindu, Software Engineer, Bangalore,
Permanent resident of D.No. 37/49-13, Balajinagar,
S.N. Colony, Rayachoty town, YSR District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The State Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary of Govt. Housing Department,
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. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 11-8-2016 in the presence of Sri Y. Ramesh Reddy, 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 to pay Rs. 52,647/- to the Complainant with interest at agreed rate from the date of complaint till date of realization, to pay suit costs of the Complainant.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the Complainant is the successful applicant for purchase of flat / independent house in the proposed construction of phase – II at Anandanilaya Township, Rayachoty by the Respondents Corporation. R3 executed an agreement of sale dt. 23-12-2010 in favour of Complainant with a condition to construct the house in classic category and deliver to him. Initially the Complainant paid ¼ amount of Rs. 5,78,250/- on the date of agreement. But the Respondents have not taken any steps to construct the house as agreed by them. Finally the Respondents come forward to allot the site measuring 52X28 feet in Survey Nos. 1302, 1303, 1304 & 1305 and executed registered sale deed on 30-6-2014 for Rs. 5,34,000/-. They agreed to refund remaining amount of Rs. 44,250/- but not refunded as promised. The Respondents failed to perform their part of contract, though the Complainant had performed his part of contract. The Complainant issued a legal notice on 15-12-2015, still not refunded the amount. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed common counter admitting the Complainant as one of the applicant and applied for allotment of house and paid Rs. 5,78,250/- and entered into agreement of sale and also Complainant was allotted house site of 52 X 28 feet for Rs. 5,34,000/-. R3 executed a sale deed for the said site as pleaded by the Complainant. But denied other allegations regarding they promised to pay Rs. 44,250/- on 30-6-2014 to the Complainant and the above said amount is refundable to the Complainant. It is further contended that the complaint is not at all maintainable as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. It is further averred that the part performance of the contract will not come under the purview of C.P. Act. The remedy if any to the Complainant is under specific performance act only. The Complainant cannot force his right to recovery the amount through this complaint. The Complainant will not come under the definition of Consumer. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. 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 respondents as claimed by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the respondents?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A5 documents are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of the Respondents.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record and considered documents filed by the Complainant.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is submitted by the Complainant that he paid excess amount of Rs. 44,250/- to the Respondents as he paid Rs. 5,78,250/-. Whereas he obtained sale deed for Rs. 5,34,000/- only. Therefore, he is entitled for refund of Rs. 44,250/- plus interest Rs. 8,407/- totaling Rs. 52,567/-.
8. On the other hand learned counsel for Respondents strenuously contended that the amount of Rs. 5,78,250/- paid by the Complainant is only initial 1/4th amount of the proposed house to be allotted to him. But the Complainant not paid the installments subsequently, however, preferred to take house site 52 X 28 feet instead of constructed house. But the sale deed was obtained for Rs. 5,34,000/- only and no agreement between parties to refund of Rs. 44,250/- at the time of registration of sale deed on 30-6-2014. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent and complaint is not maintainable and Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.
9. There is enough force in the contention of learned counsel for Respondent 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. Although the Complainant is an applicant for allotment of constructed house and paid initial ¼ amount of Rs. 5,78,250/- and entered in to agreement on 23-12-2010 with the Respondents but subsequently for the reasons known to the parties the Complainant agreed to take house site measuring 52X28 feet and get registered sale deed on 30-6-2014 from R3 for the registration value of Rs. 5,34,000/-. Now the claim of Complainant is that the difference of Rs. 44,250/- is to be refundable to him as the Respondent agreed to pay that amount. However, the Respondents denied any such promise or the Respondents agreed to pay Rs. 44,250/- to the Complainant at the time of registration of sale deed, dt. 30-6-2014 when the Complainant took the house site instead of constructed house. There is no evidence placed by the Complainant that at any point of time the Respondent promised or agreed to pay difference of Rs. 44,250/- to him. Since the Complainant, himself voluntarily come forward to take site measuring 52 X 28 feet for registration value of Rs. 5,34,000/- and obtained sale deed from the Respondent he cannot claim the difference from the Respondents on the pretext that the Respondents promised to pay difference of Rs. 44,250/-. There is no pleading in the complaint that any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. Since, the Respondent executed registered sale deed by allotting site 52 X 28 feet to the Complainant and Complainant agreed to take site instead of constructed house the Complainant cannot claim difference amount from the Respondents as calculated by him in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents 1 to 3 and 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 23rd August 2016
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of agreement of sale dt. 23-12-2010.
Ex. A2 P/c of registered sale deed d. 30-6-2014.
Ex. A3 P/c of O/c of legal notice dt. 15-12-2015.
Ex. A4 Two in number postal acknowledgements.
Ex. A5 P/c of application.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents : - NIL
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri Y. Ramesh Reddy, Advocate for Complainant.
2) Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for Respondents.
B.V.P
