State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
V.Gopala Krishna Murthy (Gkm Valluri) vs M/S Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd., on 7 March, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.909 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.No.275 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM-III HYDERABAD Between: V.Gopala Krishna Murthy (GKM Valluri) Trainee Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad Panjagutta, Hyderabad Appellant/complainant A N D M/s Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd., 10, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad-009 rep. by its President Respondent/opposite party Counsel for the Appellant Sri V.L.N.Pantulu Counsel for the Respondents Sri K.R.Kotswara Rao QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The facts of the case as set out in the complaint that the complainant had taken membership vide No.16708 and plot No.EC-IV-AA-65 by paying a sum of `53,000/- by the year 1999. Since the opposite party had not taken developmental activity, the complainant requested the opposite party to put the plot for resale and allot the same to a new member and to refund the amount paid by him. As the opposite party could not find any new buyer he kept the plot in the complainants name. On 20.1.2007 the complainant obtained statement of account from the opposite party showing the balance as `53,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party. The opposite party on 3.6.2008 informed the complainant over phone that his membership was cancelled. The complainant got issued a notice dated 5.6.2008. As there was no reply, the complainant filed C.C.No.500 of 2008 which was disposed of on 28.11.2008. During the pendency of the complaint, the opposite party has closed the account on 22.10.2008 by sending a cheque for `41,900/- out of `53,000/- paid by him. The opposite party by his letter informed the complainant that an amount of `2500/- was deducted towards administrative charges and `5,000/- towards gift scheme charges and has not accounted for `3600/- which was the balance amount. The gift scheme was introduced by the opposite party for the development of their business. The members were not informed about the payment to be made towards the scheme. The complainant got issued a notice on 2.1.2009 to the opposite party.
3. The opposite party filed counter resisting the claim and contended that the complainant earlier filed a complaint in C.C.No.500 of 2008 alleging the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party which was disposed of on merits by allowing the complaint directing the opposite party to pay compensation of `30,000/- and costs of `2,000/-.
The opposite party paid the amount through cheque dated 10.3.2009 in addition to the amount of `41,900/- already paid to him. The complainant has suppressed the result of the earlier C.C.No.500 of 2008 and filed the complaint.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A5. Mr.Col.N.Ranga Rao, Chairman and Managing Director of the opposite party company filed his affidavit and documents Exs.B1 to B4.
5. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.
6. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay interest @ 12% per annum on `54,000/-
together with costs of `2,000/-.
7. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that during pendency of the complaint filed earlier vide CC 500 of 2008 the opposite party refunded the amount of `41,900/- in the last week of February 2008 by deducting the administrative charges from the amount paid by him and it has not accounted for deducting such amount and that the District Forum disposed of the instant complaint without considering the cause of action.
8. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the amount of `8600/- fro the opposite party?
9. The complainant has filed earlier CC 500 of 2008 and during pendency of the complaint, the opposite party refunded an amount of Rs.41,900/- by making it known to the complainant that administrative charges and gift scheme payment charges were deducted from the amount paid by the complainant. The District Forum has allowed the complaint awarding a sum of `30,000/- towards compensation and `2,000/- towards costs. The complainant has filed execution application seeking for punishment of the opposite party for non-compliance of the order passed by the District forum and the opposite party has complied with the terms of the order passed by the District Forum by making payment of `32,000/- as awarded by the District Forum towards compensation and costs.
10. The complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking a sum of `8600/- on the premise that the amount of Rs.3000/- and `5000/- which was deducted by the opposite party at the time of payment of `41,900/- during pendency of the complaint CC 500 of 2008 is unjust and unreasonable. The complainant submits that the cause of action for the instant complaint arises on 15.9.2008 when the opposite party filed the counter stating that the plot allotment was cancelled and the amount was refunded to the complainant during the first week of February 2008 and on 22.10.2008 when the opposite party had sent the cheque enclosed to the letter.
11. The complainant has sufficient time and opportunity to amend his pleadings and relief in CC 500 of 2008 in the circumstances where the opposite party had refunded the amount of `41,900/- which is the remainder after the amount of administration charges and gift scheme charges were deducted from the amount paid by the complainant towards cost of the plot. The complainant had ignored to seek for amendment of relief and proceeded to prosecute the complaint. The complainant had filed execution application for making the opposite party to comply with the order passed by the District Forum whereunder a sum of `30,000/- was awarded towards compensation and `2000/- towards litigation expenses.
12. The opposite party had paid the amount of `32,000/- as awarded by the District Forum and thus complied with the direction of the District forum. In these circumstances, there left nothing remained and having executed the order passed by the District Forum in C.C.No.500 of 2008, the complainant cannot be hard to contend that he can still file another complaint for the relief that ought to have been sought for in CC 500 of 2008. The complainant consciously proceeded with the prosecution of CC 500 of 2008 to its logical end and filed execution application and thus allowed the order therein to become final. The complainant has not filed appeal against the order of the District Forum. In these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the District Forum which held the instant complaint not maintainable.
13. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirmed the order of the District Forum. The costs of the appeal quantified at `1,000/-.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.07.03.2011 KMK*