State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd., Md Sec Bad vs . Dasari Subrahmanyam And Others Ongole on 19 July, 2007
BEFORE THE A
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD
F.A. 885/2007
AGAINST C.D. 259/2006, DIST. FORUM, PRAKASHAM AT ONGOLE.
Between:
1. M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Narne Ranga Rao
1, Gunrock Enclave
Khar Khana,
Secunderabad-500 009.
2. Narne Ranga Rao
Managing Director
M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
1, Gunrock Enclave
Khar Khana,
Secunderabad-500 009. *** Appellants/
O.Ps 1 & 2.
A N D
1. Dasari Subrahmanyam
S/o. Dasari Narayana Rao
R/o. Pattivari Street, Ongole *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. Capt. K. V. Sastry
The Dist. Marketing Officer
Branch Office
Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
Srinivasa Colony
Kurnool Road, Ongole. *** Respondent/
(R2 is not a necessary party) O.P. No. 3.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Vedala Henry.
Counsel for the Respondents : Admission Stage.
QUORUM:
SMT M. SHREESHA, PRESIDENT (I/c)
&
SRI G.
BHOOPATHY REDDY, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND SEVEN Oral Order ( As per Smt M.Shreesha, President-I/c) ***** Aggrieved by the order in C.D. No. 259 of 2006 on the file of District Forum, Prakasham at Ongole the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 preferred this appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainant joined as a Member of the scheme of Opposite Parties bearing No. 21299 and booked a plot No. ZG-41 (CP) in East City, Sector-V and paid Rs. 27,000/- towards cost of the plot in instalments to Opposite Party No. 3. Later Opposite Party No. 3 vacated the office at Ongole and the Opposite Parties did not send the agents for collection of remaining amount payable by the complainant. After a great deal the complainant could locate the office of Opposite Parties at Hyderabad in the year 2006 and since then he has been visiting Opposite Parties to receive balance of Rs. 6,300/- and for registration of plot in his favour but the Opposite Parties postponed the matter on one pretext or the other for receiving balance of Rs. 6,300/- and failed to register the plot. It is submitted by the complainant that finally the Opposite Parties in the first week of February, 2006 demanded the complainant to pay additionally an amount of Rs. 33,000/- to register the plot for which the complainant is not agreeable. It is further submitted by the complainant that instead of registering the plot Opposite Parties sent a cheque Dt. 16.2.2006 for Rs. 26,000/- but the complainant did not encash the same. Hence this complaint praying to direct the Opposite Parties to deliver and register the Plot No. ZG-41 (C.P), East City, Sector-V in favour of complainant and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for deficiency of service on behalf of Opposite Parties together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
Opposite Parties 1 & 2 filed counter admitting that the complainant was provisionally allotted Plot No. 41, Block No. ZG (C.P) in Sector-V and the cost of plot was Rs. 37,000/- and the complainant was given 10% discount in the cost of the plot and the complainant preferred to pay balance of Rs. 33,300/- in instalments @ Rs. 750/- p.m. commencing from June, 1994 to October, 1997. Complainant paid only Rs. 27,000/- and became defaulter from 1997 onwards till 2006. Complainant also failed to pay the development charges and dues in spite of issuing several reminders.
Therefore, Opposite Party was forced to cancel the allotment on 4.3.2006 and refunded Rs. 26,000/- by way of cheque No. 440639 Dt. 6.2.2006 to the complainant. It is prayed to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs. A1 to A7 and Exs. B1 to B4 and the pleadings put forward the Dist. Forum allowed the complaint directing Opposite Parties to deliver the possession of plot No. ZG-41 (C.P) of East City, Sector-V duly registered in favour of complainant and also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The complainant is directed to bear the registration charges. Further, Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the said order within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which Opposite Parties are liable to pay further compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.
Aggrieved by the said order Opposite Parties 1 & 2 preferred this appeal.
Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that half of the allottees failed to pay the development charges and nearly 1,000 plot allotments were cancelled as the allottees failed to pay the developments charges in 5 to 10 years.
The cancellation of plots was done in accordance with the terms and conditions of allotment of plots. The Dist. Forum failed to see that the complainant failed to pay the basic cost of the plot for nearly 9 years and the development charges in spite of repeated requests. Complainant is not entitled for registration of plot after cancellation of allotment of plot since the complainant failed to pay the development charges. The Dist. Forum failed to see that the complainant has sent a demand draft for Rs. 6,300/-
after cancellation of plot and during the pendency of the C.D. the Dist. Forum erroneously felt that the appellant encashed it.
Learned Counsel further contended that the Dist. Forum erred in awarding further compensation of Rs. 5,000/- if the order is not complied with within one month from the date of receipt of order.
We have gone through the material on record. It is not in dispute that the complainant joined the scheme of Opposite Parties for purchase of a plot in Narne Estates and paid Rs. 27,000/-.
The complainant approached the Opposite Parties for several times to receive balance amount of Rs. 6,300/- and register the plot but in return the Opposite Parties sent a letter to the complainant demanding that the complainant should pay extra Rs. 33,000/- for registration and there after sent a cheque for Rs. 26,000/- Dt. 16.2.2006 to the complainant refusing to register the plot. The complainant did not encash the cheque and requested for registration of the plot. Opposite Parties encashed the cheque sent by the complainant but did not register the plot. There is no evidence on record to show that the Opposite Parties addressed several letters to the complainant which were acknowledged by the complainant and also whether Rs. 6,300/- was returned by the Opposite Parties to the complainant. Keeping in mind the fact that the Opposite Parties have taken the amount from the complainant and did not register the plot, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency of service on behalf of Opposite Parties and we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the Dist. Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks failing which the Dist. Forum is directed to proceed in accordance with law.
PRESIDENT (I/c) MALE MEMBER Dt. 19. 7. 2007 *pnr