State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
F.A.No.599 Of 12:The Bhagyalaxmi Real ... vs F.A.No.599 Of 12:B.V.Simhachalam, ... on 24 July, 2013
BEFORE THE A
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.599/2012 against
C.C.No.54/2011, District Forum, Srikakulam.
Between
The Bhagyalaxmi Real Estates,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
Smt.Pitchika Bhagyalakshmi,
W/o.Suryarao,
Raja Complex, Shop No.5,
G.T.Road, Srikakulam. ..Appellant/
Opp.party.
And
B.V.Simhachalam, S/o.Adinarayana,
Hindu, aged 65 years, R/o.S2C/129
Sachivalayanagar, Vanasthalipuram,
Hyderabad-1. Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant :
M/s T.D.Phani Kumar
Counsel for the
Respondent : Mr.A.Rama Rao.
F.A.No.600/2012 against
C.C.No.55/2011, District Forum, Srikakulam.
Between
The Bhagyalaxmi Real
estates,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
Smt.Pitchika Bhagyalakshmi, W/o.Suryarao,
Raja Complex, Shop No.5,
G.T.Road, Srikakulam. ..Appellant/
Opp.party.
And
S.A.P.Rao Patnaik, S/o.Chandrasekhara Patnaik,
Hindu, aged 60 years,
R/o.Plot No.17,
Santhinagar Colony,
Srikakulam Town and District. Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant :
M/s T.D.Phani Kumar
Counsel for the
Respondent : Mr.A.Rama Rao.
F.A.No.602/2012 against
C.C.No.56/2011, District Forum, Srikakulam.
Between
The Bhagyalaxmi Real
Estates,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
Smt.Pitchika Bhagyalakshmi,
W/o.Suryarao,
Raja Complex, Shop No.5,
G.T.Road, Srikakulam. ...Appellant/
Opp.party.
And
L.V.Umadevi, W/o.L.D.M.V.S.Prasad,
Hindu, aged 42 years, Household duties,
Resident of Duvvupeta
Village,
Sreekurmam Post, Gara Mandal,
Srikakulam District. Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant :
M/s T.D.Phani Kumar
Counsel for the
Respondent : Mr.A.Rama Rao.
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE Incharge
President
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Order (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) *** F.A.No.599/2012:
This appeal is directed against the order dt.25.04.2012 of the District Forum, Srikakulam made in C.C.No.54/2011.
The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent herein is the complainant in C.C.No.54/2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant purchased one house plot, from opposite party, which is a real estate firm, by paying monthly instalment @ Rs.500/- for a period of 62 months and the opposite party allotted plot bearing registration No.393. The complainant entered into an agreement of sale dated 11-06-2006 for the subject plot and was paying instalments regularly to the opposite party upto June, 2008. The complainant submitted that the opposite party violated the terms and conditions and did not obtain approval from the concerned Gram Panchayat and has not paid the conversion fees for non agricultural lands and some irrigation channel was also laid on the layouts as proposed by the Government and the opposite party assured that it will be cleared within one year but opposite party failed to take any steps and the complainant gave personal letter to opposite party on 11-8-2008 which was acknowledged, but he failed to respond. Therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 17-02-2010 and demanded the opposite party to allot the plot or return the amount paid by him with interest for which the opposite party did not give any reply. Hence this complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to allot the plot to the complainant or in the alternative to return the amount of Rs.19000/- together with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of last payment till the date of realization besides damages and compensation of Rs.30,000/- and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
The opposite party filed counter, denying all the material allegations made by the complainant and contended that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and did not pay all the instalments and is a defaulter and that he never came forward seeking registration or for paying the balance amounts and now the opposite party is not in a position to register the plot in the Bhagyalakshmi Real Estates, as the scheme was completed and hence contended that there is no deficiency in service on her part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The District Forum based on the evidence i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 and the pleadings put forward, allowed the complaint, in part, directing the opposite party to allot the plot in Bhagyalakshmi Real Estate, Rajam covered by Survey Nos.348/2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 349/11 after providing necessary amenities and approval of the layout by the competent authorities or in the alternative to pay Rs.19,000/- together with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of last instalment i.e. 11-6-2008 till the date of payment, if the complainant agrees and if the complainant is not willing to receive the amount, the opposite party is directed to handover site only. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.18,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/- inclusive of advocates fee of Rs.1000/-, to be complied within two months.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party preferred this appeal.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is an admitted fact that the complainant joined in the scheme floated by the opposite party and as per their scheme the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- @ Rs.500/- per month, for a period of 62 months. After completion of 12 months period and on payment of Rs.6000/- for 12 monthly instalments, the opposite party allotted the plot and executed Ex.A2 Agreement dt. 11.6.2006, in favour of the complainant.
It is the case of the complainant that the complainant continued to pay the monthly instalments upto June,2008, but the opposite party violated the conditions of the brochure, and also not obtained any approval from the concerned Grampanchayat. The opposite party failed to take any steps to fulfill the above conditions as per the brochure, inspite of several requests and legal notice got issued by the complainant on 17.2.2010, demanding the opposite party to allot plot and register the same. The opposite party did not give any reply, though the said notice served on it.
Therefore, the opposite party is liable to allot the plot or return the amount of Rs.19,000/- as prayed by the complainant.
On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant paid the instalments irregularly and violated the terms and conditions of the real estate business. The complainant never approached the opposite party, but the agents of the opposite party approached and demanded the complainant to pay all the instalments and get register the plot in his name. But the complainant did not come forward to get register the plot after payment of balance amount. Now the opposite party is not in a position to register the plot in Bhagyalakshmi Real Estate, as the scheme is already completed. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount or for damages.
The complainant filed Ex.A1 original receipts of payment and Ex.A4 the office copy of the legal notice got issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.A5 postal acknowledgement, which proved that the opposite party received the original of Ex.A4 notice.
Admittedly, the opposite party did not issue any reply notice refuting the contents of Ex.A4 notice. The opposite parties have not filed any documents especially their statement of accounts to disprove the contention of the complainant that they have not received the said amount from the complainant. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.19,000/-, but the opposite party did not register the plot in favour of the complainant. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the judgements of the Apex Court in HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIY vs. SHAKUNTHALA DEVI (2005 (9) SCC page 464) and BRIZPAL SHARMA vs. GAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (III (2005) CPJ 43 (SC) ), in cases where the dealings pertain to real estates, we do not see any reason for reducing the interest from 15% awarded by the District Forum. We also observe that if the complainant has to purchase plot today, the market value of it would be much higher.
Therefore, we do not find any error on the part of the District Forum in directing the opposite party to pay interest at 15% p.a. from the date of last payment till the date of realisation in case the complainant opts for alternative relief.
For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or illegality to interfere with the impugned order of the District Forum. Hence the appeal fails.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part, directing the complainant to pay the balance amount and obtain the sale deed from the opposite party. Accordingly, the impugned order of the District Forum is modified, keeping the rest of the order as it is. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The appellant/opposite party is directed to comply with the order of the District Forum within four weeks.
F.A.No.600/2012and 602/2012:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.599/2012, these appeals are also allowed in part, directing the complainants to pay the balance amount and obtain the sale deeds from the opposite party. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the District Forum are modified, keeping the rest of the orders as it is. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The appellant/opposite party is directed to comply with the orders of the District Forum within four weeks.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt. 24.7.2013