Jana Chaitanya Housing Consumer Court Judgments

Register Help
Top of Form
User Name
Passw ord
Log in
Remember Me?
guest login
Bottom of Form
Forum Today's Posts FAQ Calendar Community Member List Forum Actions Mark Forums Read Quick Links View Forum Leaders What's New? Judgments Submit Complaint
Top of Form
guest
process
Bottom of Form
Advanced Search
Forum Real Estate Residential
Janachaitanya Housing
Top of Form
dismissnotice
guest
1. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Bottom of Form
+ Submit Your Complaint Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread: Janachaitanya Housing
LinkBack
LinkBack URL About LinkBacks
Bookmark & Share
Digg this Thread! Add Thread to del.icio.us Bookmark in Technorati Furl this Thread!
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page Subscribe to this Thread

Search Thread
Top of Form
Search...
Search
Advanced Search
guest
vBForum_Post
Bottom of Form
process
9303
Rate This Thread
Top of Form
Current Rating
Excellent Good Average Bad Terrible

guest 9303
Bottom of Form
15
Display
Linear Mode
Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode 1. 09-06-2009 11:59 AM #1

admin Administrator Join Date Sep 2008 Location Great INDIA Posts 2,985
C.C.No.10/2008 Between: Maragani Hemalatha, W/o Sai Babu, 40 years, Motheywari Thota, Eluru, W G Dist. ..Complainant. AND Janachaitanya Housing Ltd , D.No.36-12-17, Sabbavarupuvari Street, Rajahmundry, Rep by C M D, Madala Sudhakar, Opposite party. This case is coming on 20.3.2009 .for final hearing before this Forum and upon perusing the complaint, and other material papers on hand and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A M S V Prasada Rao, Advocate for
the complainant and Sri K S Lakshmi Narayana Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum has pronounced the following. ORDER (By Smt.H V Ramana, Member) This is a complaint filed under section.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite party to allot two plots each measuring 200 Sp Yds by receiving the amount of Rs.650/- per Sq Yd from the complainant and also to grant compensation and costs. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that, she joined as a member for purchase of two plots with the opposite partys venture by name Sai Bhavani group on 20.11.2001 and 4.12.2001, the opposite party issued two passbooks bearing Nos.1108 and 1153. At the time of joining in the above said venture the opposite party promised to allot 200 Sqyds plot to every member. Having believing the same the complainant made payments to the opposite party under different dates. The complainant paid Rs.31,200/- under pass book No.1108 and Rs.32,000/- under pass book No.1153 respectively to the opposite party. The above said payments were duly endorsed in the passbooks issued by the opposite parties. When the complainant asked the opposite party to show the proposed plots to her, the opposite party refused to allot her the plot for Rs.650/- per sqyd and also stated that the complainant should pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per square yard, but not the agreed rate of Rs.650/-. Inspite of several demands by the complainant the opposite party failed to show the plots and this complainant suffered a lot of mental agony. Hence, the complaint. 3. The opposite party filed written version denying all the material allegations made by the complainant. The opposite party admitted that the complainant joined as a member in the Sai Bhavani venture and booked two plots on 20.11.2001 and 4.12.2001. The opposite party also admitted that they issued two passbooks bearing Nos.1108 and 1153 to the complainant and also signed the application with terms and conditions. The area of the each plot is 200 Sy yds and the value of the plot is Rs.1,40,000/- and the same should be paid in 50 installments. As per the terms of the scheme
the complainant shall pay Rs.1200/- every month for 50 months. In addition to that the complainant shall pay Rs.16,000/- and at the time of joining the scheme and in the 6th month the member shall pay Rs.10,000/- special installment and she also should pay an amount of Rs.9,000/- in the 12,18,24,30,36,42 installments. The agreement between the parties is reciprocal in nature and order of priority is that at the first instance the complainant has to fulfill his part of contractual obligation. The complainant failed to pay the installment amount of the plot cost as per agreement and she paid only Rs.31,200/and 32,000/- instead of Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs.1,40,000/-. As per clause 11 of terms and conditions, if the member fails to pay the installment amount three months continuously then this opposite party is entitled to cancel the membership. This opposite party is always ready to register the plot if the complainant fulfills his part of contract. The complainant never ready to fulfill the contract and she is a defaulter. Hence the opposite party prays the Honourable Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs. 4. Exs.A.1 to A.8 has been marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B.1 to B.5 on behalf of the opposite party and no oral evidence has been adduced on either side. 5.Heard both sides. Both parties filed written arguments. 6.The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief, If so, to what relief ?
7.POINT NO.1: The Admitted facts in the case are that the complainant booked two plots with the opposite party and the opposite party issued two passbooks and the same were marked as Exs.A.1 and A.3. The opposite party also
admitted that the complainant paid Rs.31,200/- and Rs.32,000/- and the said amounts were reflected both in Ex.A.1, A.3 and Ex.B.3, B.4 the statement of account. The complainant contended that the opposite party failed to register the plots even in spite of payment of Rs.31,200 and Rs.32,000/- respectively. The complainant approached the opposite party several times to show the plots allotted to her, but the opposite party refused to show the plots at the rate of Rs.650/- per square yard. She further contended that the opposite party demanded to pay Rs.1,000/- per Sq yard. The complainant is always ready with the money to register the plot if they calculate the cost of the plot at the rate of Rs.650/- per sq yard as mentioned in Exs.A.1 and A.3. The opposite party refused to receive the above said amount and failed to register the plots. The complainant also filed some of the receipts under Exs.A.2 and A.4 and also filed two letters received from the opposite party for payment of balance amount under Ex.A.5 and A.6. The complainant further contended that because of the behaviour of the opposite party she suffered a lot of mental agony and filed Exs.A.7 and A.8 medical receipts. The opposite parties filed the application forms signed by the complainant along with terms and conditions under Exs.B.1 and B.2. They also filed the state of account vide Exs.B.3 and B.4 and also filed approved layout plan of Sai Bhavani vide Ex.B.5. The complainant contended that she paid Rs.31,200/- and Rs.32,000/- for both the plots and also ready to pay the balance amount if the opposite party register the plots for Rs.650/- per sq yard. The complainant contended that the opposite party demanded Rs.1,000/- per sq yard, but she has not filed any document to that extent. The complainant herself filed Exs.A.5 and A.6, these documents shows that they demanded the balance amount as per the terms and conditions only and there is no enhanced amount. The complainant failed to prove this allegation. The complainant further contended that the opposite party failed to show the plots to her and she made several demands to the opposite party, but she failed to prove the same by filing any documentary evidence before this Forum. As per the material on record it shows that the complainant after paying her last installments to the opposite party, she never contacted the opposite party and paid any amounts to them. The complainant also relied on citations reported in AIR 1998 Supreme court, 3804 between M/s Arosan Enterprises
Ltd Vs Union of India and another. AIR 2006 Supreme court, 151 between Amteswara Anand Vs Veerendra Mohan singh and others. The above said citations are not related to the present case as the complainant herself failed to pay the installments and approach the opposite party for registering the plots. The opposite party contended that they never asked the complainant to pay Rs.1,000/- per sq yard instead of Rs.650/- per sq yard. The complainant submitted the application duly signed by her and it also contains the terms and conditions. The complainant failed to pay the installment as per the terms and conditions. As per our observation the complainant failed to pay the installment amounts within the prescribed period as per the terms and conditions. Now at this belated stage she cannot blame the opposite party for deficiency in service and she is not entitled for damages. As per the discussion held supra; we are of the considered opinion that the complainant and the opposite party are at fault to fulfill their own obligations within the prescribed time. So that, the opposite party is directed to pay the deposited amounts to the complainant with interest.
8. POINT NO.2: In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.31,200/-(Rupees thirty one thousand two hundred only) and Rs.32,000/-(Rupees thirty two thousand only) with interest @12% P.A from the date of last payment i.e on 21.8.2002 and 31.10.2002 respectively till the date of realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) towards costs. Regards, Admin, File RTI Send Legal Notice Know your CIBIL Click here to Become Premium Member ** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details ** Submit Complaint..
2. 09-06-2009 12:02 PM #2
admin
Administrator Join Date Sep 2008 Location Great INDIA Posts 2,985 C.C.No.108/2008 Between: Ramayanam Keswava Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, 64 years, Retd Co-operative Secretary, Co-operative Dept, D.No.9-2-132, Kaluvakolanu Street, Amalapuram. ..Complainant. AND 1.Janachaitanya Housing Ltd, Rep by C M D, Madala Sudhakar, Central Office, Ameerpeta, Hyderabad 500-082. 2. Janachaitanya Housing Ltd , Rep by the Branch Manager, D.No.36-12-17, Sabbavarupuvari Street, Rajahmundry. Opposite parties. This case is coming on 20.3.2009 .for final hearing before this Forum and upon perusing the complaint, and other material papers on hand and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V Sai, Advocate for the complainant and Sri K S Lakshmi Narayana Advocate for the opposite parties 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum has pronounced the following. ORDER (By Smt.H V Ramana, Member) This is a complaint filed under section.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.4,83,056/under various heads. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that, he joined as a member on 3.11.2000 in the house plot venture floated by the opposite parties by name Sai Bhavani Phase group and paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in all to the 2nd opposite party herein by 5.3.2003. The complainant was issued a passbook bearing No.443 by the opposite parties. On 31.1.2006 the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that the venture got approved vide LP No.26/2005 R, Dt.9.5.2005. On 26.9.2006 the complainant wrote a letter to the 2nd opposite party for registration of his plot No.302 allotted by the opposite parties. But, to his dismay the complainant received a letter from the 2nd opposite party on 12.6.2007
alleging that he did not come forward for the registration which allegation is nothing but false on the part of the opposite parties. Later the complainant approached the opposite parties for registration of his plot, but in vein. Finally the complainant got issued legal notice Dt.11.4.2008 through his counsel and received reply with false allegations from the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.
3. The 2nd opposite party filed written version and the same was adopted by the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties denied all the material allegations made by the complainant. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant joined as a member in the Sai Bhavani group and booked for a plot. The opposite parties also admitted that they issued a passbook bearing No.443 to the complainant and also signed the application with terms and conditions. The area of the plot is 200 Sy yds and the value of the plot is Rs.1,30,000/- and the same should be payable in 3 years. As per the terms of the scheme the complainant shall pay Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/- each shall be paid in the months of 12th, 24th and 36th months respectively. The complainant initially allotted a tentative plot and after getting the approved layout the exact number would be allotted to those member who have paid the installment amount and development charges. The complainant has not paid the installments as per the terms and agreement. The layout has been approved by the director of Country and Town planning, Hyderabad with its approval .LP. No. 26/2005/RC.No.7917/04/R.1. The opposite party demanded the complainant for payment of Registration charges and development charges. The complainant failed to pay the above said amount. The opposite parties are always ready and willing to register the plot, but the complainant has not come forward for registration of the plot. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite parties and these opposite parties are ready to register the plot, hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 4. Exs.A.1 to A.10 has been marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B.1 to B.3 on behalf of the opposite parties and no oral evidence has been adduced on either
side. 5. Heard both sides. Both the parties filed written arguments. 6.The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ? 2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief, If so, to what relief ? 7.POINT NO.1: The Admitted facts in the case are that the complainant booked a plot with the opposite parties vide Ex.A.1 broacher and the opposite parties issued a passbook and bunch of vouchers and the same have been marked as Ex.A.2 and A.3 respectively. The opposite party also admitted that the complainant paid Rs.1,20,000/- and the said amount is reflected both in Ex.A.2 and Ex.B.2 the statement of account. The opposite party also gave a tentative plot number vide Ex.A.4. The opposite party issued a letter to the complainant for payment of balance amount vide Ex.A.5. The opposite party wrote another letter vide Ex.A.6 to the complainant to register his plot as the above said venture got the approved layout. The complainant also wrote a reply vide Ex.A.7 to the opposite party. The complainant contended that the opposite parties failed to register the plot even in spite of payment of all the installments and he approached the 2nd opposite party number of times, but they failed to register the plot. Finally the complainant got issued a registered notice Dt.11.4.2008 vide Ex.A.8. The opposite party received the same under Ex.A.9 and issued a reply vide Ex.A10. The complainant contended that after receipt of Ex.A.6 he wrote a letter to the opposite party under Ex.A.7 even then the opposite party failed to register the plot. The complainant further contended that as per the provisions of the scheme if any person paid the installments within 3 years with the value of the plot Rs.1,30,000/- for 200 Sq yds he has eligible for the plot of 200 Sq yds for an amount
of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- discount will be given to him. The complainant further contended that he joined in the scheme on 3.11.2000 and his last installment is on 5.3.2003 and the opposite party also allotted plot No.302. The opposite party failed to register the plot even after payment of the entire amount amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite party that the complainant was irregular in payment and he has not come forward for registration even in spite of expressing their readiness. The opposite parties filed the application form signed by the complainant along with terms and conditions under Ex.B.1. They also filed the approved layout plan of Sai Bhavani vide Ex.B.3. The opposite parties contended that initially they allotted a tentative plot and after getting the approval of the layout exact plot Number would be allotted to the members who have paid the entire installment amount. But, in this case the complainant paid the entire amount on 10.3.2003 as per B.2, but the opposite parties failed to register the plot in the name of the complainant and this amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant paid amounts as per the condition No.5A and B. As per the discussion held supra; we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not registering the plot even in spite of paying the overall installments and also several demands. Now days the value of land appreciated like any thing because of so many reasons. The complainant invested his amounts as and when the opposite party demanded him and the said amount was invested by the opposite party in his business. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the damages.
7.POINT NO.2:In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.1,20,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) with interest @12% P.A from 5.3.2003 till the date of realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards damages and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs. Regards, Admin, File RTI
Send Legal Notice Know your CIBIL Click here to Become Premium Member ** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details ** Submit Complaint..
3. 09-27-2009 11:59 AM #3
adv.sumit Senior Member Join Date Sep 2009 Posts 1,362
Banala Vijaya Ratnam, W/o. B.Rama Murthy Naidu, Hindu, aged 60 years, House wife, Resident of MIG, Sector-I, Plot No.1, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam-17. Complainant. vs 1)M/s. Janachaitanya Housing (P) Limited, Dwarakanagar Region and Branch Office, 5th Lane, bearing D.No.43-3-13, Visakhapatnam. 2) M/s.Janachaitanya Housing (P) Ltd., Registered Office at Guntur, represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Sri M.Sudhakar, Hindu, aged 48 years, H.No.4-5-29/66, 4th Lane, Vidya Nagar, Guntur. Opposite Parties. ORDER 1. The claim of the Complainant is to direct the Opposite Parties to register plot No.29 of Sai Divya Phase-II admeasuring 200 square yards or in the alternative to pay Rs.1,95,779/- together with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of filing the case till date of payment of that amount besides to pay damages of Rs.5,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.75,000/-. 2. The sole Opposite Party has resisted the claim of the Complainant through a written counter.
3. The contest of the Complainant, as can be seen from the averments of her complaint filed in the case on hand, is that the 2nd Opposite Party is a realtor and that the 1st Opposite Party is its branch office at Visakhapatnam and that their prime business to develop layouts and that as a part of their business, the Opposite Parties have floated a venture viz., Sai Divya Phase-II at Visakhapatnam and then they invited members of the general public to become subscribers of that layout for purchasing plots of house sites on easy installment basis and that, therefore, she joined as a member of that layout for purchasing a plot of 200 square yards and that the cost of that plot was fixed at Rs.1,20,000/- and in that connection an agreement was concluded between her and them, the Opposite Parties, at that time she paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- as part of the sale consideration.
The further contest of the Complainant is that, she paid another sum of Rs.25,000/- and in all total she subscribed a total sum of Rs.65,000/- by 21-07-2001. I t is also the contest of the Complainant that, the Opposite Parties despite collecting more than half of the cost of that plot, they did not develop the proposed venture and that therefore, she demanded them to develop it at an early date but then there was no proper response from them and that every time they used to postpone the process of development and as such her hopes of getting a developed plot of house site were dashed and as such she suffered a great deal of mental agony which amounts to nothing short of rendering deficient service for her and eventually she filed the case on hand claiming for allotment of plot No.29 of the proposed venture or in the alternative to pay the sum of Rs.1,95,779/- together with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of filing of her complaint till date of actual payment besides claiming for damages of Rs.5,00,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.75,000/-. 4. Whereas the contest of the Opposite Parties, inter-alia as can be seen from the averments of its counter filed in the case on hand, is that although the Complainant joined as a member of the venture in question, she subscribed a sum of Rs.65,000/- only out of the total consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- and that the remaining consideration of Rs.55,000/- was not paid by her in spite of their repeated demands and thereby she remained as a 3 defaulter and as such the amount subscribed by her was forfeited towards damages and that, therefore, she is not entitled to claim for any reliefs from this Forum. The other contest of the Opposite Parties is that, they had performed their part of the contract by spending huge amounts and that
they registered developed plots in favour of those subscribers who had paid the entire cost of the plots purchased by them, but they could not register any plot in favour of the Complainant because of her default only and that they were not deficient in service and hence to dismiss the case with costs. 5. In view of the rival contentions referred above, the case has been posted for hearing. During the course of hearing, the 11 documents filed by the Complainant were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-11. Whereas no documents whatsoever were filed by the Opposite Parties. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. Now the points that arise for determination in the case at hand are: i) Whether the Complainant is a defaulter? ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to claim for allotment of the proposed plot of house site or in the alternative whether she is entitled to claim for Rs.1,95,779/-? iii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to claim for interest? If so, on which amount, at what rate and from which date? iv) Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service for the Complainant? v) Whether the Complainant is entitled to claim for damages from this Forum? 7. Point Nos.1 to 3 : These three points are inter-related besides interdependent and as such all these points are, therefore, taken up together for simultaneous discussion. 8. At the outset, we would like to observe that, it is an admitted fact that, the Opposite Parties floated the venture viz., Sai Divya Phase-II wherein the Complainant joined as a member subscriber for purchasing a plot of house site admeasuring 200 square yards and its total costs was fixed at Rs.1,20,000/-. It is also an indisputable fact that the Complainant had subscribed only Rs.65,000/- and failed to subscribed the balance sale consideration of Rs.55,000/-. 4 Consequently, the Complainant had acquired the status of a defaulter in as much as there is a specific clause cum condition in the sale agreement covered by Ex.,A-1 which empowers the Opposite Parties to terminate the membership of the Complainant. The relevant clauses No.10 available in page No.2 of the Ex.A-1, sale agreement, which runs as follows. In case the vendee commits default in the payment of three consecutive, ordinary installments or two special installments, his/her membership shall stand cancelled automatically
without further notice and all the amounts paid by him or her till then shall stand forfeited, treating them as agreed compensation and liquidate damages for such breach of trust under the provisions of the Contract Act. In the very opening lines of this Ex.A-1, sale agreement, it was categorically stated that it was agreed by, and between the parties subject to the terms and conditions enumerated therein. Clause-13 of this agreement further contemplates that the terms and conditions of it forms part of the very agreement itself. Thus a conjoint reading of Clause Nos.10 and 13 of this agreement establishes the one fact that the Complainants default if any, in payment of they agreed installments automatically result in ceasing her membership in that venture. The Complainant, admittedly had failed to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.55,000/- without there being any justifiable cause. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the Complainant being defaulter that is debarred from claiming for allotment of the plot in question. Now, let us consider the alternative relief that has been prayed for by the Complainant. 9. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant has defaulter. But then the fact remains proved is that, she had subscribed a sum of Rs.65,000/- to the Opposite Parties not only under this Ex.A-1 sale agreement but also under the 7 receipts covered by Exs.A-5 to A-11. that amount was not refunded by the Opposite Parties. Of course, the contention of the Opposite Parties is that they forfeited that amount towards liquidated damages. Now, the question is whether the plea of the Opposite Parties is tenable under law. 10. It is an admitted fact that the contract covered by Ex.A-1, sale agreement, is a contract in respect of immovable property. The contract of sale covered by this Ex.A-1 sale agreement was frustrated, of course, due to the 5 failure on the part of the Complainant to subscribe the balance of sale consideration. But in our considered opinion it does not confer any right on the Opposite Parties to forfeit that amount in as much as it did not develop the proposed venture. Moreover, the Act of appropriation of the amount subscribed by the Complainant amounts to nothing short of unlawful enrichment for the Opposite Parties. The relevant provisions in the Contract Act as well as the Specific Relief Act do mandate the Opposite Parties to refund the subscribed amount to the Complainant. Added to it, the Opposite Party did not place any evidence to prove its claim of damages. No data whatsoever, was furnished by the Opposite Parties to prove their plea of damages. Here we would like to remained ourselves the specific plea of the Complainant that she could not pay the balance of sale consideration only because of the failure of Opposite Parties to develop the proposed venture besides their failure to collect the balance of sale consideration from her,
although she was always ready in willing to perform her part of the contract covered by Ex.A-1, sale agreement. Be that as it may, the fact remains proved is that the Opposite Parties are not entitled to appropriate the amount that was subscribed the Complainant. Consequently, it is a legal obligation for the Opposite Parties to refund the subscribed amount of Rs.65,000/-. But then, the Opposite Parties did not return that amount without there being any justifiable ground. This in turn renders the Opposite Parties to pay a reasonable rate of interest. But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainants claim for interest staked at 24% p.a. is acceptable for us in as much as the prime learning rate of interest being charged by the Nationalised Banks functioning in this land on commercial loans is hovering around 12% p.a. So, adoption of that rate to the case on hand would better serve the ends of justice and in this view of the matter, rest of her claim for is rejected as excessive and exaggerated. Admittedly the last installment was paid by the Complainant on 21st July, 2001 and as such she is entitled to claim for interest at 12% p.a. on the subscribed amount of Rs.65,000/- for the period commencing from 21st July, 2001 till the date of actual realization. 11. In summing up our discussion, under these points we hold that the Complainant being a defaulter of the scheme, she is not entitled to claim for allotment of the proposed plot of house site. However, she is entitled to claim for refund the subscribed amount of Rs.65,000/- together with interest at 12% 6 p.a. accrues thereon for the period commencing from 21st July, 2001 till date of actual realisation. These three points are therefore, answered accordingly. 12. Point No.4: Our findings on point Nos. 1 to 3 have established the one fact that the Opposite Parties without there being any justifiable ground had failed to refund the subscribed amount of Rs.65,000/-. That failure on the part of the Opposite Parties should have made the Complainant to undergo the ordeal of mental agony in as much as there was no assurance whatsoever from the Opposite Parties for the Complainant to get back the subscribed amount. Naturally, that should have made the Complainant to suffer mentally. That pain and sufferance has to be recompensated by the Opposite Parties. But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainants claim for compensation staked at Rs.75,000/- is acceptable for us. In our considered opinion, having considered the whole gamut of the facts and circumstances of the case besides considering the monetary value of her main claim, awarding a compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) would not only be adequate but also better serve the ends of justice. Rest of her claim for compensation is therefore, rejected as excessive and exaggerated.
13. The fourth point is therefore, partly answered holding that she is entitled to claim for a compensation of Rs.7,000/- ( Rupees seven thousand only). 14. Point No.5: This leads us to take up the 5th point in the case. The Complainants claim for damages of Rs.5,00,000/- but it is a surprise to note that, as to how she had calculated that amount and on what basis she had arrived at that figure of damages. There is no data whatsoever, furnished by the Complainant to substantiate her claim for damages of Rs.5,00,000/-. Be that as it may, now it is settled law that the Fora established under the C.P.Act, 1986 are competent to award only compensation but not damages and the consumers have to establish the regular Civil Courts to enforce their claims for damages. For this proposition we are fortified with the decision is reported in 2008 CTJ 561 (SUPREME COURT) (CP) this decision was rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the matter of Citi Bank NA Vs Geekey Agro Pack (P) Ltd., and another. In para No.9 of this decision their lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court have held in the following manner; The appeal filed by Geekay for not getting adequate compensation for the total amount of loss incurred by it is misconceived. For the recovery of total amount of loss, it is open for the appellant Geekay to file a Civil Suit before the appropriate Court which, we are informed has already been filed. The National Commission could have awarded compensation only for the deficiency of service only. The said compensation has been awarded by the National Commission. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by Geekay also. In the result, all these appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the Complainants claim for damages is rejected as untenable and not maintainable in this Forum. 15. Hence, the Complainants claim for damages is rejected as not maintainable in this Forum and according the point is therefore, in the negative and against the Complainant. 16. In the result, both the Opposite Parties are directed to pay jointly and severally, Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand only) together with interest at 12% p.a. accrues thereon for the period commencing from 21st July, 2001 till date of actual realization, besides to pay a compensation of Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) to the Complainant within a month from the date of this order. Both the Opposite Parties are further directed to pay an additional sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the Complainant towards costs of the litigation that too within the time stipulated above.
Submit Complaint..
4. 10-05-2009 03:01 PM #4
Consumer Guidance Society, Representing: Smt V. Krishna Mohini, W/o Jaya Ram, C/o. 41-1/10-36, Nehru Nagar, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada 520 013, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
.. Complainant.
vs
1. M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Limited, Rep: by its Managing Director, Registered Office: 5/1, Pasumalai Complex, Arundalpet, Guntur 522 002.
2. M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Limited, Rep: by its Branch Manager, Mamidi Mansions, 2nd Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada 520 003.
.. Opposite Parties.
ORDER
1. The averments of the complaint are as follows:
That on luring advertisements of the opposite parties the complainant joined as one of the members in Sai Dutta Group and paid a total sum of Rs.1,20,100/- and the opposite parties promised to register 200 Sq. yards plot to the complainant and issued a pass-book bearing No.1699. After payment of full amount the complainant asked the opposite parties to fulfill their promise but they failed to comply on the ground that the complainant has not paid required amount and thereby they have adopted unfair trade practice. As all the efforts of the complainant became futile in getting the plot registration so, the acts of the opposite parties falls within the purview of deficiency in service and hence, the complaint. 2. The 2nd opposite party filed version, which was adopted by the 1st opposite party wherein they interalia denied the allegations in general but admitted about the promoting of Sai Dutta Venture and giving of passbook to the complainant bearing No.1699 but the complainant failed to comply her promise and failed to pay the required amount and only paid Rs.1,20,100/- as such she is not entitled for the plot to an extent of 200 Sq. yards in Sai Dutta Venture. Further, the complainant also failed to pay the instalments in time and that the scheme was started in December 2000 and ended by 30.11.2003 and thereby the complaint is barred by limitation and that these opposite parties never adopted unfair trade practice and there was no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties and that this complaint is a vexatious one filed for personal gain and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. On behalf of the complainant the complainant herself filed an affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. On behalf of the opposite parties Sri N.B.G. Tilak filed an affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.
4. Heard both the counsel.
5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:
I) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
II) Whether the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice in promoting Sai Dutta Venture?
III) To what relief the complainant is entitled?
6. Point Nos.1 and 2: As could be seen from the material on hand there is no dispute that the opposite parties promoted Sai Dutta Group (venture) and advertised to the customers to purchase 200 Sq. yards by paying monthly instalments and on that the complainant paid instalments vide Ex.A2 in fact there is no dispute about it further, the opposite parties admitted that they have promoted Sai Dutta Group for house sites and that the complainant is one of the members but she failed to follow the terms as envisaged in the pass-book (Ex.A1) and also in Ex.B1 in fact, the terms and conditions are of self-made no need to give much precedence to it even otherwise as could be seen from the terms and conditions they have promoted Sai Dutta Group by giving specific survey numbers and that every member has to pay Rs.100/- as entry fee and then they have to pay the amount in limited instalments or lump sum (5A) further, if the member pays the instalments in 40 then the value of the plot is Rs.1,40,000/- but as could be seen from Ex.A1 and B2 the complainant paid Rs.1,20,000/- in 23 instalments. what ever it may be but there is no dispute with regard to payment and relief asked by the complainant is to register the plot or to return the paid amount with interest at 24% p.a., for that the allegations leveled against the opposite parties are two fold: One is unfair trade practice and the other is deficiency in service. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that after payment of Rs.1,20,000/- the opposite parties failed to register the plot and the rebuttal arguments of the opposite parties are that the complainant has not paid full amount as already noted supra the instalments are 40 but the
complainant paid the amount Rs.1,20,000/- in 23 instalments and if at all the intention of the opposite parties is to register a plot they have to issue notice to the complainant to pay the balance and to get valid registered document by incurring registration charges etc., but there is no such evidence what so ever. On the other hand the complainant also not issued legal notice or any notice to the opposite parties to come and register by taking the incidental charges etc., so, there are latches on either side with regard to unfair trade practice, there is no scope to attribute the same to the opposite parties, why because, they have not concealed any fact and the terms and conditions are in black and white and even the same can be seen in Ex.A1. On the other hand the complainant ought to have asked the opposite parties to produce registered documents for the survey Nos.286P etc., or at least ought to have asked the preliminary layout etc., but in this case there is no such evidence so, this Forum is of the view that there is no scope to attribute unfair trade practice to the opposite parties as the sale of the (plots) (scheme) was widely published but yet in this case the opposite parties also failed to fie the approved layout even on the date of hearing so, there is some deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties further, as already noted supra, the relief is only an alternative one asked by the complainant so without proper and approved layout no need to direct the opposite parties to execute a valid registered sale deed but however, the complainant is entitled for the return of the paid amount with interest and accordingly these points are answered.
7. Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 and 2 (jointly and severally) are directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,20,100/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand and one hundred) only with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of repayment and do pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards costs. Rest of the claim if any claimed by the complainant is rejected. Time for compliance one month. Submit Complaint..
5. 10-10-2009 01:04 PM #5
Mr. P.K.S.R. Kumar, S/o. Muralikrishna Murthy, age years, Occ: Service, R/o. Plot No 161/B, Mothinagar, Opp: IOB, Yerragadda, Hyderabad 18
2. Mr. P. Uday Kumar, S/o. Muralikrishna Murthy, age years, Occ: Service, R/o. Plot No 161/B, Mothinagar, Opp: IOB, Yerragadda, Hyderabad 18
Both the complainants represented by their father and GPA holder Sri Muralikrishna Murthy, S/o. Late P Laxmi Narayana, aged about 66 years, R/o. yerragadda, Hyderabad. Complainants
And
M/s Janachaitanya Housing Finance Limited, rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Room No 203 to 206, 2nd Floor, Vamsi Estates III, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500 016 and also at Happy Homes Apartments, Door No 4-18-31, Chandramoulinagar, Main road, Guntur 522 007 Opposite Party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of M/s K. B. Ramanna Dora, Counsel for Complainants and Sri M. Srinivas Swaroop, advocate, for the Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-
ORDER
1. This is a consumer complaint filed under Sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the Opposite Party to register the plot bearing No 75 admeasuring 400 Sq. yards in Sai Laxmi II Venture at Nanakramguda, Hyderabad covered by passbook No 251 (N) and passbook No 254 (N) in favour of the complainant duly receiving the balance amount of Rs. 2,18,000/- at the time of registration as per the agreement, pay the damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
2. The complainants case in brief is that the OP had offered the plot bearing No 75 admeasuring 400 Sq. yards in Sai Laxmi II venture at Nanakramguda, Hyderabad for a total consideration of Rs. 6,80,000/-. As per the letter of OP, dated 02.08.2000 each of the complainants had to pay Rs. 3,40,000/- (for 200 Sq yards) as below;
Initial payment Rs. 60,000.00 40 monthly installments Rs. 80 000.00 Special additional amount Rs. 40,000.00
Balance to be paid at the time of registration Rs. 1,60,000.00
They were issued passbook No 251 (N) and passbook No 254 (N) in
respect of plot No 75 in the said venture. Accordingly, each of the complainant had paid Rs. 2,31,000/- in instalments and OP had issued receipts and entered the same in the passbooks. The complainants requested the OP several times orally and by letter, dated 19.11.2007 to register the plot in their names by accepting the balance amount at the time of registration. In reply, dated 03.12.207, the OP had requested them for some more time to register the plot. In the meanwhile the OP issued a legal notice, dated 22.01.2008 to the complainants, who were told on enquiry that it was sent in a routine manner as if the OP was always ready to register the plot. But the OP was unilaterally trying to cancel the allotment and alienate the plot to the third parties at a higher price. Further the OP demanded huge amount towards development charges, and exorbitant betterment charges, but failed to register the plot and it is a clear case of deficiency in service and the complainants suffered financially and mentally also.
3. The Opposite Party contended that the complainants were defaulters and not eligible for any plot as per terms and conditions. Hence, the question of collecting the exorbitant charges from the complainants did not arise.
4. It is also pleaded that the 1st Complainant joined as a member in the month of February, 2000 (passbook No 251-N) and the 2nd Complainant joined in August, 2000 (passbook No 254 N), as such they had booked the plots separately and were not original members as they got the passbooks from original customers and got them transferred in their names. Therefore there is no privity of contract directly between them and OP. The total cost of each plot (200 Sq. yards) was Rs. 3,40,000/- to be paid in 40 monthly instalments besides special monthly instalments, In addition, development charges, betterment charges and registration charges were to be paid at the time of registration. The complainants did not pay monthly instalments and special monthly instalments as per the terms and conditions (Clause 4 C of terms and conditions) and became defaulters. To overcome this, the complainants created a fabricated document, dated 02.08.2008 stating that the balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration. Each complainant paid Rs. 2,31,000/- as on 04.11.2004 and became defaulters, thereafter as per the Clause 20 of the passbook which reads as follows:
In case any member commits default in making payments of three consecutive instalments or two special instalments, his or her membership stands cancelled without further notice and all amounts paid by such members till then shall stand forfeited treating as compensation and liquidated damages for such breach of trust.
5. It is further pleaded that the person who wrote the alleged letter, dated 02.08.2000 namely Mr. V. Subba Reddy was not an authorized person of the OP, but was only a marketing personnel and Clause 8 of terms and conditions clearly read None of the company employees or others is authorized to make any promises to customers beyond or contrary to these terms and conditions. The company accepts no responsibility for such unauthorized promises if any by one. In the matter of plot reservation the promises of anyone are not valid, except the written intimation from the branch manager to the customer. The complainant did not refer to the alleged letter, dated 02.08.2000 in his letter, dated 26.02.2007 but created it for the purpose of filing this false complaint to make an illegal gain. The OP vide letter, dated 03.12.2007 informed the complainants that as they had become defaulters in the said venture, it was not possible to allot any plot in the said venture and they would consider to allot a plot in any other venture subject to the terms and conditions. As there was no response, a legal notice, dated 22.01.2008 was issued by which being defaulters, they were requested to take refund of the amount paid by them. The complaint is barred by limitation and the OP did not commit any unfair trade practice and there was no deficiency in service.
The complainants sought enforcement of contractual obligation and not seeking any alternative relief. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is time barred? 2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of OP: If so, 3. Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs asked?
4. To what relief?
7. The Complainants filed evidence affidavit, written arguments and relied on exhibits A 1 to A 9. The Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and written arguments but did not rely on any documetns. Both sides advanced oral arguments.
8. Point No i: The opposite party admitted to have issued legal notice, dated 22.01.2008 to the complainants to take refund of the amount paid by them and the complaint having been filed within 2 years from that date is not time barred.
9. Points No ii & iii: It is an admitted fact that the complainants had paid Rs. 2,31,000/- each towards consideration of 200 Sq. yards plot, in instalments offered by the OP out of total consideration of Rs. 3,40,000/-. The OP had tentatively allotted them plot bearing No 75, admeasuring 400 sq yards in Sai Laxmi-II Venture at Nanakramguda for a total consideration of Rs. 6,80,000/-. The complainant stated that as per letter, dated 02.08.2000 (Exhibit A-3) the mode of payment was as below:Initial payment Rs. 60,000.00 40 monthly installments Rs. 80 000.00 Special additional amount Rs. 40,000.00
Balance to be paid at the time of registration Rs. 1,60,000.00 Total cost of 200 sq yards plot Rs. 3,40,000.00
10. The OP denied issuing of the letter, dated 02.08.2000 and the complainants had to pay the plot cost as per 4 C of terms and conditions mentioned in the passbook. It is pertinent to note the payment schedule mentioned in 4 C of the passbook (Exhibit A-2) which read as follows:
The plot cost can be paid in 40 monthly instalments. The Sq. yard rate is Rs. 1,700/- including tentative development charges of Rs. 100/-. The plot measuring 200 Sq. yards costs Rs. 3,40,000/-. The payment has to be made in 40 ordinary instalmenst at Rs. 2,000/- per month. In addition special instalments at Rs. 50,000/- each in the months of 1, 6, 9 and 12, Rs. 40,000/- in the 18th month and Rs. 20,000/- in the 20th month have to be paid. From the passbooks (Exhibit A-2) it is clear that each of the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,31,000/- in instalments in between 06.06.2001 and 04.11.2004 out of total consideration of Rs. 3,40,000/-. It is noted that the payment by the complainants did not conform to any of the above modes averred by the complainant and the opposite party. The complainants contended that as per letter, dated 02.08.2000, they had to pay Rs. 1,60,000/- each at the time of registration. As it is observed that they had paid Rs. 2,31,000/- each by 04.11.2004 means that they have paid Rs. 51,000/- more than they ought to have paid. Exhibit A-3 is said to be the letter by Sri V. Subba Reddy alleged to be the Divisional Sales Manager, dated 02.08.2000. If they had received such a letter already, they should have brought it to the notice of OP, as the payment conditions mentioned in the passbooks are quite different. However, as the complainants are banking on the alleged letter, dated 02.08.2000, how is it that they had paid Rs. 51,000/- more than required?. It certainly raises a suspicion. From the stand point of the OP, the complainants did not pay instalments beyond 04.11.2004 and by virtue of terms and conditions they became defaulters.
11. Even if we presume without accepting that the alleged letter, dated 02.08.2000, was a genuine one, as per the Clause 8 of the terms and conditions the branch manager was only competent to write such a letter, and not the divisional sales manager. Exhibit A-6 is the letter, dated 03.12.2007 from the Central Office of the OP informing the complainants that there was the possibility of allotting a plot in Vattinagulapally Venture after obtaining approval, as further payments could not be allowed vide earlier passbooks. It appears that the complainants did not evince any interest in that Venture. Exhibit A-7 is the legal notice, dated 22.07.2008 issued by the OP stating that as the complainants were defaulters they were not entitled for any plot in the said venture and the
OP was ready to refund the amount paid by them. That the complainants stopped paying the instalments after 04.11.2004 and became defaulters and the OP expressed his willingness to refund the amount paid by them. The complainants could not make out that they are entitled for direction against OP as prayed. They also failed to convince that the OP was deficient in service. However they are entitled for refund of the amount.
12. Point No iv: In the result, the Opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 2,31,000/- to each of the complainants with % interest at 12% per annum from 04.11.2004 till the date of realization within 30 days. There is no order as to costs. Submit Complaint..
6. 10-10-2009 01:50 PM #6
G.Sree Ramya, D/o. G. Velangini Rao, Hindu, aged 14 years, residing at Emmanual Street, Gnanapuram, Visakhapatnam . Complainant And: M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Reptd. By its Managing Director, Sri M.Sudhakar, Hindu, aged 50 years, regional Office, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam ... Opposite Parties
This case is coming on for final hearing on 11-09-2009 in the presence of Sri J.P.Naidu, Advocate for the complainant, and of Sri R.Lakshmana Rao, Advocate for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following :ORDER:
1. In the case of the complainant is that the opposite party is doing Real Estate Business at Visakhapatnam. The complainant being minor represented by her next friend, and natural guardian who submitted that the complainant joined the scheme in the year 2003 opted to purchase an extent of 200 Sq. Yards in Sai Vishnu Phase-IIA and that the opposite party issued pass book No.2483 and that he paid in all a sum of Rs.19,000/- and the representative of the complainant visited the opposite party for allotment of the House plot at Kothavalasa, Visakhapatnam and did not find any development in the said area and came to know that the opposite part did not make any efforts to develop the land and obtained any necessary approvals from the concerned officials and thus sought for refund of the amount of Rs.19,000/- along with interest at 24% p.a Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, Rs.10,000/- for damages and for costs. 2. The opposite party filed the counter resisting the claim of the complainant and stated that the complainant has suppressed the material aspects so as to derive wrongful gain and the complainant is defaulter and liable to pay a sum of Rs.69,000/- and committed breach of contract. The opposite party sated that during the course of business they are procuring the lands and developing the same with their funds by launching the layout in scheme basis and that they have accomplished all legal formalities and strictly adhered to the contractual obligations. The opposite party reiterated that they have marketable title over the said lands and informing the progress of the lay out and if the member fails to pay successive monthly installments his/ her membership will be forfeited without any further notice and that they have incurred huge expenditure for materialization of the lay out and that such losses has to be compensated by the complainant and under defaulters cause the complainant has to forego the amounts paid etc. 3. The guardian of the complainant filed his affidavit, the opposite party reported no evidence. Heard both sides. The opposite party though stated that they have procured the lands is and complied with all legal formalities did not choose to file any documents to show the progress of the layout. Except the bald statement in the counter, the opposite party did not choose to file any documents in support of the same and in the case on hand the opposite party did not choose to corroborate their counter even by filing their affidavit. As per the scheme the layout has to be completed by May 2006 and we are in the year 2009 and more than three years has completed by now and yet the opposite party did not file any document to show even to the forum as to the exact position of the layout and as such the version of the complainant with respect to non development of the lay out go un-
rebutted.
4. Now can this failure of the opposite party to develop the lay out will entitle them to forfeit the amounts paid by the complainant. Admittedly as stated above, the opposite party did not place any material before us to show that they have in fact procured the lands and developed the same by incurring the expenditure and that be the so, the opposite party cannot forfeit any amount for their own lapses .It has been observed that realtors are in general procrastinating payments directed by this forum and virtually making them installment decrees. In these circumstances we feel in the interest of justice the refund of the amount with nominal interest at 9% p.a from 30-06-2004 would be meet the ends of justice if the opposite party pays the same within 60 days from the date of the order and in case the opposite party fails to pay the amount within the aforesaid period, the opposite party shall be liable to pay the deposited amount at 18% p.a from 30-06-2004.
5. The complainant was deprived of the plot due to the non development of the layout by the opposite party and the amounts paid by the complainant was enjoyed by the opposite party all these years and considering the minimal amount paid by the complainant we feel awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation is just. 6. In the result the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite party to pay Rs.19,000/- along with interest at 9% p.a from 30-06-2004 till payment within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which to pay same at the rate of 18% p.a from 30-06-2004 till payment. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/- only. Submit Complaint..
7. 10-14-2009 07:20 PM #7
1. Mr. P.K.S.R. Kumar, S/o. Muralikrishna Murthy, age years, Occ: Service, R/o. Plot No 161/B,
Mothinagar, Opp: IOB, Yerragadda, Hyderabad 18
2. Mr. P. Uday Kumar, S/o. Muralikrishna Murthy, age years, Occ: Service, R/o. Plot No 161/B, Mothinagar, Opp: IOB, Yerragadda, Hyderabad 18
Both the complainants represented by their father and GPA holder Sri Muralikrishna Murthy, S/o. Late P Laxmi Narayana, aged about 66 years, R/o. yerragadda, Hyderabad. Complainants
And
M/s Janachaitanya Housing Finance Limited, rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Room No 203 to 206, 2nd Floor, Vamsi Estates III, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500 016 and also at Happy Homes Apartments, Door No 4-18-31, Chandramoulinagar, Main road, Guntur 522 007 Opposite Party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before this Forum in the
presence of M/s K. B. Ramanna Dora, Counsel for Complainants and Sri M. Srinivas Swaroop, advocate, for the Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-
ORDER
1. This is a consumer complaint filed under Sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the Opposite Party to register the plot bearing No 75 admeasuring 400 Sq. yards in Sai Laxmi II Venture at Nanakramguda, Hyderabad covered by passbook No 251 (N) and passbook No 254 (N) in favour of the complainant duly receiving the balance amount of Rs. 2,18,000/- at the time of registration as per the agreement, pay the damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
2. The complainants case in brief is that the OP had offered the plot bearing No 75 admeasuring 400 Sq. yards in Sai Laxmi II venture at Nanakramguda, Hyderabad for a total consideration of Rs. 6,80,000/-. As per the letter of OP, dated 02.08.2000 each of the complainants had to pay Rs. 3,40,000/- (for 200 Sq yards) as below;
Initial payment Rs. 60,000.00 40 monthly installments Rs. 80 000.00 Special additional amount Rs. 40,000.00
Balance to be paid at the time of registration Rs. 1,60,000.00
They were issued passbook No 251 (N) and passbook No 254 (N) in respect of plot No 75 in the said venture. Accordingly, each of the
complainant had paid Rs. 2,31,000/- in instalments and OP had issued receipts and entered the same in the passbooks. The complainants requested the OP several times orally and by letter, dated 19.11.2007 to register the plot in their names by accepting the balance amount at the time of registration. In reply, dated 03.12.207, the OP had requested them for some more time to register the plot. In the meanwhile the OP issued a legal notice, dated 22.01.2008 to the complainants, who were told on enquiry that it was sent in a routine manner as if the OP was always ready to register the plot. But the OP was unilaterally trying to cancel the allotment and alienate the plot to the third parties at a higher price. Further the OP demanded huge amount towards development charges, and exorbitant betterment charges, but failed to register the plot and it is a clear case of deficiency in service and the complainants suffered financially and mentally also.
3. The Opposite Party contended that the complainants were defaulters and not eligible for any plot as per terms and conditions. Hence, the question of collecting the exorbitant charges from the complainants did not arise.
4. It is also pleaded that the 1st Complainant joined as a member in the month of February, 2000 (passbook No 251-N) and the 2nd Complainant joined in August, 2000 (passbook No 254 N), as such they had booked the plots separately and were not original members as they got the passbooks from original customers and got them transferred in their names. Therefore there is no privity of contract directly between them and OP. The total cost of each plot (200 Sq. yards) was Rs. 3,40,000/- to be paid in 40 monthly instalments besides special monthly instalments, In addition, development charges, betterment charges and registration charges were to be paid at the time of registration. The complainants did not pay monthly instalments and special monthly instalments as per the terms and conditions (Clause 4 C of terms and conditions) and became defaulters. To overcome this, the complainants created a fabricated document, dated 02.08.2008 stating that the balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration. Each complainant paid Rs. 2,31,000/- as on 04.11.2004 and became defaulters, thereafter as per the Clause 20 of the passbook which reads as follows:
In case any member commits default in making payments of three consecutive instalments or two special instalments, his or her membership stands cancelled without further notice and all amounts paid by such members till then shall stand forfeited treating as compensation and liquidated damages for such breach of trust.
5. It is further pleaded that the person who wrote the alleged letter, dated 02.08.2000 namely Mr. V. Subba Reddy was not an authorized person of the OP, but was only a marketing personnel and Clause 8 of terms and conditions clearly read None of the company employees or others is authorized to make any promises to customers beyond or contrary to these terms and conditions. The company accepts no responsibility for such unauthorized promises if any by one. In the matter of plot reservation the promises of anyone are not valid, except the written intimation from the branch manager to the customer. The complainant did not refer to the alleged letter, dated 02.08.2000 in his letter, dated 26.02.2007 but created it for the purpose of filing this false complaint to make an illegal gain. The OP vide letter, dated 03.12.2007 informed the complainants that as they had become defaulters in the said venture, it was not possible to allot any plot in the said venture and they would consider to allot a plot in any other venture subject to the terms and conditions. As there was no response, a legal notice, dated 22.01.2008 was issued by which being defaulters, they were requested to take refund of the amount paid by them. The complaint is barred by limitation and the OP did not commit any unfair trade practice and there was no deficiency in service.
The complainants sought enforcement of contractual obligation and not seeking any alternative relief. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is time barred? 2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of OP: If so, 3. Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs asked?
4. To what relief?
7. The Complainants filed evidence affidavit, written arguments and relied on exhibits A 1 to A 9. The Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and written arguments but did not rely on any documetns. Both sides advanced oral arguments.
8. Point No i: The opposite party admitted to have issued legal notice, dated 22.01.2008 to the complainants to take refund of the amount paid by them and the complaint having been filed within 2 years from that date is not time barred.
9. Points No ii & iii: It is an admitted fact that the complainants had paid Rs. 2,31,000/- each towards consideration of 200 Sq. yards plot, in instalments offered by the OP out of total consideration of Rs. 3,40,000/-. The OP had tentatively allotted them plot bearing No 75, admeasuring 400 sq yards in Sai Laxmi-II Venture at Nanakramguda for a total consideration of Rs. 6,80,000/-. The complainant stated that as per letter, dated 02.08.2000 (Exhibit A-3) the mode of payment was as below:Initial payment Rs. 60,000.00 40 monthly installments Rs. 80 000.00 Special additional amount Rs. 40,000.00
Balance to be paid at the time of registration Rs. 1,60,000.00 Total cost of 200 sq yards plot Rs. 3,40,000.00
10. The OP denied issuing of the letter, dated 02.08.2000 and the
complainants had to pay the plot cost as per 4 C of terms and conditions mentioned in the passbook. It is pertinent to note the payment schedule mentioned in 4 C of the passbook (Exhibit A-2) which read as follows:
The plot cost can be paid in 40 monthly instalments. The Sq. yard rate is Rs. 1,700/- including tentative development charges of Rs. 100/-. The plot measuring 200 Sq. yards costs Rs. 3,40,000/-. The payment has to be made in 40 ordinary instalmenst at Rs. 2,000/- per month. In addition special instalments at Rs. 50,000/- each in the months of 1, 6, 9 and 12, Rs. 40,000/- in the 18th month and Rs. 20,000/- in the 20th month have to be paid. From the passbooks (Exhibit A-2) it is clear that each of the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,31,000/- in instalments in between 06.06.2001 and 04.11.2004 out of total consideration of Rs. 3,40,000/-. It is noted that the payment by the complainants did not conform to any of the above modes averred by the complainant and the opposite party. The complainants contended that as per letter, dated 02.08.2000, they had to pay Rs. 1,60,000/- each at the time of registration. As it is observed that they had paid Rs. 2,31,000/- each by 04.11.2004 means that they have paid Rs. 51,000/- more than they ought to have paid. Exhibit A-3 is said to be the letter by Sri V. Subba Reddy alleged to be the Divisional Sales Manager, dated 02.08.2000. If they had received such a letter already, they should have brought it to the notice of OP, as the payment conditions mentioned in the passbooks are quite different. However, as the complainants are banking on the alleged letter, dated 02.08.2000, how is it that they had paid Rs. 51,000/- more than required?. It certainly raises a suspicion. From the stand point of the OP, the complainants did not pay instalments beyond 04.11.2004 and by virtue of terms and conditions they became defaulters.
11. Even if we presume without accepting that the alleged letter, dated 02.08.2000, was a genuine one, as per the Clause 8 of the terms and conditions the branch manager was only competent to write such a letter, and not the divisional sales manager. Exhibit A-6 is the letter, dated 03.12.2007 from the Central Office of the OP informing the complainants that there was the possibility of allotting a plot in Vattinagulapally Venture after obtaining approval, as further payments could not be allowed vide earlier passbooks. It appears that the complainants did not evince any interest in that Venture. Exhibit A-7 is the legal notice, dated 22.07.2008 issued by the OP stating that as the complainants were defaulters they were not entitled for any plot in the said venture and the OP was ready to refund the amount paid by them.
That the complainants stopped paying the instalments after 04.11.2004 and became defaulters and the OP expressed his willingness to refund the amount paid by them. The complainants could not make out that they are entitled for direction against OP as prayed. They also failed to convince that the OP was deficient in service. However they are entitled for refund of the amount.
12. Point No iv: In the result, the Opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 2,31,000/- to each of the complainants with % interest at 12% per annum from 04.11.2004 till the date of realization within 30 days. There is no order as to costs. Submit Complaint..
8. 10-15-2009 09:14 AM #8
G.Sree Ramya, D/o. G. Velangini Rao, Hindu, aged 14 years, residing at Emmanual Street, Gnanapuram, Visakhapatnam . Complainant And: M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Reptd. By its Managing Director, Sri M.Sudhakar, Hindu, aged 50 years, regional Office, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam ... Opposite Parties
:ORDER:
1. In the case of the complainant is that the opposite party is doing Real Estate Business at Visakhapatnam. The complainant being minor
represented by her next friend, and natural guardian who submitted that the complainant joined the scheme in the year 2003 opted to purchase an extent of 200 Sq. Yards in Sai Vishnu Phase-IIA and that the opposite party issued pass book No.2483 and that he paid in all a sum of Rs.19,000/- and the representative of the complainant visited the opposite party for allotment of the House plot at Kothavalasa, Visakhapatnam and did not find any development in the said area and came to know that the opposite part did not make any efforts to develop the land and obtained any necessary approvals from the concerned officials and thus sought for refund of the amount of Rs.19,000/- along with interest at 24% p.a Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, Rs.10,000/- for damages and for costs. 2. The opposite party filed the counter resisting the claim of the complainant and stated that the complainant has suppressed the material aspects so as to derive wrongful gain and the complainant is defaulter and liable to pay a sum of Rs.69,000/- and committed breach of contract. The opposite party sated that during the course of business they are procuring the lands and developing the same with their funds by launching the layout in scheme basis and that they have accomplished all legal formalities and strictly adhered to the contractual obligations. The opposite party reiterated that they have marketable title over the said lands and informing the progress of the lay out and if the member fails to pay successive monthly installments his/ her membership will be forfeited without any further notice and that they have incurred huge expenditure for materialization of the lay out and that such losses has to be compensated by the complainant and under defaulters cause the complainant has to forego the amounts paid etc. 3. The guardian of the complainant filed his affidavit, the opposite party reported no evidence. Heard both sides. The opposite party though stated that they have procured the lands is and complied with all legal formalities did not choose to file any documents to show the progress of the layout. Except the bald statement in the counter, the opposite party did not choose to file any documents in support of the same and in the case on hand the opposite party did not choose to corroborate their counter even by filing their affidavit. As per the scheme the layout has to be completed by May 2006 and we are in the year 2009 and more than three years has completed by now and yet the opposite party did not file any document to show even to the forum as to the exact position of the layout and as such the version of the complainant with respect to non development of the lay out go unrebutted.
4. Now can this failure of the opposite party to develop the lay out will entitle them to forfeit the amounts paid by the complainant. Admittedly as
stated above, the opposite party did not place any material before us to show that they have in fact procured the lands and developed the same by incurring the expenditure and that be the so, the opposite party cannot forfeit any amount for their own lapses .It has been observed that realtors are in general procrastinating payments directed by this forum and virtually making them installment decrees. In these circumstances we feel in the interest of justice the refund of the amount with nominal interest at 9% p.a from 30-06-2004 would be meet the ends of justice if the opposite party pays the same within 60 days from the date of the order and in case the opposite party fails to pay the amount within the aforesaid period, the opposite party shall be liable to pay the deposited amount at 18% p.a from 30-06-2004.
5. The complainant was deprived of the plot due to the non development of the layout by the opposite party and the amounts paid by the complainant was enjoyed by the opposite party all these years and considering the minimal amount paid by the complainant we feel awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation is just. 6. In the result the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite party to pay Rs.19,000/- along with interest at 9% p.a from 30-06-2004 till payment within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which to pay same at the rate of 18% p.a from 30-06-2004 till payment. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/- only. Submit Complaint..
9. 10-21-2009 10:30 AM #9
Smt. P.Thayaramma, W/o P.Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged 50 years resident of Railway New Colony, Type II Quarters,Visakhapatnam Complainant And: Janachaitanya Housing Private Ltd., Rep. by Branch Manager, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ... Opposite Parties
:ORDER:
1. In the case of the complaint is that the opposite party is doing Real Estate business throughout Andhra Pradesh one having branch at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. The complainant opted to purchase an expenditure of 200 Sq.Yards in Sai Aditya I Phase-II in serial No.192 on 1-1-2000 and that the opposite party issued pass book No.1034. The complainant further submitted that she has paid Rs.500/- in Rs.2,000/- and paid in all sum of Rs.8,000/- and stopped further payment as the opposite party refused to show the approved layout and other documents. It is the specific case of the complainant that the opposite party did not take any steps for allotment, registration development of land and hence sought for refund of the amount. 2. The opposite party filed the counter resisting the claim of the complainant and stated that the complainant has suppressed the material aspects so as to derive wrongful gain and the complainant is defaulter and liable to pay a sum of Rs.92,000/- and committed breach of contract. The opposite party stated during the course of business they are procuring the lands and developing the same with their funds by launching the layout in scheme basis and that they have accomplished all legal formalities and strictly adhered to the contractual obligations. The opposite party reiterated that they have marketable title over the said lands and informing the progress of the lay out and if the member fails to pay successive monthly installments his/her membership will be forfeited without any further notice and that they have incurred huge expenditure for the materialization of the layout and that such losses has to be compensated by the complainant and under defaulters cause the complainant has to forego the amounts paid etc. 3. The complainant filed her affidavit the opposite party reported no evidence. Heard both sides. The opposite party though stated that they have procured the lands and complied with all legal formalities did not choose to file any documents to show the progress of the lay out and it is the case of the complainant that she sought for refund of the amount for not furnishing the details of the layout.
Except the bald statement in the counter, the opposite party did not choose to file any documents in support of the same and in the case on hand the opposite party did not choose to corroborate their counter even by filing their affidavit. As per the scheme the layout has to be completed by November 2003 and we are in the year 2009 and nearly six years will be over by this November 2009 and yet the opposite party did not file any document to show even to the forum as to the exact position of the layout and as such the version of the complainant with respect to the non development of the lay out go un-rebutted. 4. Now can this failure of the opposite party to develop the layout will entitle them to forfeit the amounts paid by the complainant. Admittedly as stated above, the opposite party did not place any material before us to show that they have in fact procured the lands and developed the same by incurring the expenditure and that be the so, the opposite party cannot forfeit any amount for their own lapses. It has been observed that realtors are in general procrastinating the payments directed by this forum and virtually making them installment decrees. In these circumstances we feel in the interest of justice the refund of the amount with nominal interest at 9% p.a from 27-1-2000 would be meet the ends of justice, if the opposite party pays the same within 60 days from the date of the order and in case the opposite party fails to pay the amount within the aforesaid period, the opposite party shall be liable to pay the deposited amount at 8% p.a from 27-1-2000. 5. The complainant was deprived of the plot due to the non development of the layout by the opposite party and the amounts paid by the complainant was enjoyed by the opposite party all these years and considering the minimal amount paid by the complainant we feel awarding a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation is just. Submit Complaint..
10. 10-29-2009 10:05 PM #10
Sidhant Moderator Join Date Sep 2008 Posts 1,699
Mullapudi Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkata Rao, Residing at GAndigunta Village, Vuyyuru Mandalam, Krishna District. .. Complainant. And 1. M/s Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep: By its Branch Manager, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada 3.
2. M/s Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep: By its Chairman, 2nd Floor, Sai Nilayam, Seetharama Mansion, Bandar Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada 10. .. Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 06.10.2009 in the presence of Sri M. Prasad Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri U.V. Subrahmanyam, Advocate for opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum doth order the following:
ORDER 1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
That the complaint on seeing the luring advertisements of the opposite parties 1 and 2 joined as one of the members in Sai Durga venture promoted by the opposite parties on 30.04.2002. He was allotted pass book No.710-A and agreed to provide an extent of 200 Sq. yards at Pedapulipaka Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District for which the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- in instalments and accordingly the complainant paid the entire amount and there after requested the opposite parties to execute a valid sale deed but the opposite parties paid a deaf ear so, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 27.01.2009 though, the opposite parties received the same but kept mum hence, the complaint.
2. The 1st opposite party filed counter, which was adopted by the 2nd opposite party. The averments of the version in brief are as follows:
They denied the allegations of the complaint at a glance but admitted the promoting of Sai Duraga venture at Pedapulipaka Village and also admitted about the membership of the complainant but stated that the complainant was irregular in payment of instalments and thereby the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the scheme in particular 5 (d). The opposite parties further stated that the complainant paid Rs.1,60,000/- but failed to pay developmental charges etc., so also the registration charges as such the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed and in fact there is a gap of two years from the date of last payment yet instead of requests and demands by the opposite parties the complainant failed to pay the developmental charges and other incidental charges so, he is not entitled for the relies claimed and that there was no deficiency in serve on the part of these opposite parties and that the complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands that to suppressing the real facts and there are no bonafidies to allow the complaint and that the interest claimed by the complainant is also excessive and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant the complainant himself filed an affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the opposite parties Sri N.B.G. Tilak filed an affidavit and no documents are marked.
4. Heard both the counsel.
5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:
I) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? If so the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
II) To what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1: As could be seen from the material on hand there is no dispute that the opposite parties promoted Sai Durga venture at Pedapulipaka village and that the complainant joined as one of the members and was allotted pass book No.710-A vide Ex.A1 and that the complainant also paid the amount and the same was also noted in Ex.A1 and the Ex.A2 receipts are also clear. Infact, the opposite parties also not denied the same but the opposite parties failed to execute valid document so, the complainant got issued legal notice under the original of Ex.A3 and that the opposite parties received the same under Ex.A4 but no reply that itself amounts to deficiency in service. Of course and it may be a fact that the complainant has to pay the developmental and registration charges etc., and that the opposite parties has to produce or provide final layout but here in this case both are lacking. Now the complainant asking the Forum to direct the opposite parties to execute a valid deed by receiving developmental charges, incidental charges and registration charges and the plea of the complainant is also acceptable and genuine but there arose a doubt whether the Sai Durga venture was having all permissions i.e., layout conversion and final layout etc., so, without having any of the above there is no scope to direct the opposite parties to execute a register deed for 200 sq. yards, why because, the complainant was not allotted a plot with specific number and boundaries but he was only allotted pass-book and that the complainant paid instalments so, in the circumstances no useful purpose would be served by directing the opposite parties to execute a valid deed without the above, so it is better to direct the opposite parties to return the amount paid by the complainant with interest above all the acts of the opposite parties that of non-reply to the legal notice and non-allotting of any plot and nonproviding of required data that of layout etc., all amounts to deficiency in service since there is no rebuttal evidence or what so ever. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 and 2 (jointly and severally) are directed to return the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh and sixty thousand) only to the complainant with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of payment of last instalment till the date of payment and do pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards costs. Rest of the claim if any claimed by the complainant is rejected. Time for compliance one month. Regards, Click here to Become Premium Member Submit Complaint.. + Submit Your Complaint
TCL India Holding | Non Fulfilment of commitments by builder Similar Threads

1. Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Limited
By admin in forum Judgments Replies: 3 Last Post: 10-14-2009, 07:53 PM

2. GPR Housing
By admin in forum Judgments Replies: 1 Last Post: 09-06-2009, 11:29 AM

3. Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd.
By admin in forum Judgments Replies: 1 Last Post: 09-03-2009, 11:24 AM

4. Janachaitanya Housing Pvt Ltd.
By Tanu in forum Judgments Replies: 0 Last Post: 09-02-2009, 08:18 AM

5. The Executive Engineer (Housing) A.P. Housing Board
By Sidhant in forum Judgments Replies: 0 Last Post: 08-31-2009, 02:16 PM Tags for this Thread complaint deficiency in service
View Tag Cloud Bookmarks

Bookmarks
Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google You may post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On
Posting Permissions
Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On
Forum Rules
Top of Form
-- English (US)
Bottom of Form
Contact Us Consumer Court Archive Privacy Statement Top
All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 08:48 PM. Registered Society (Govt. of NCT Delhi, INDIA) Site owners is not responsible for the information posted on this website. Powered by vBulletin Version 4.0.3 Copyright 2010 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.1
Top of Form
15501
w w w .consumerc janachaitanya ho
janachaitanya,ho
4a4651464c514e
http://w w w .cons
Janachaitanya Ho 203.8
2.m-36019.h-360
1469
1283181534141
4.0.50524.0
2004
30
Bottom of Form
Advertisement
Star Health Insurace No Paper Work. Cashless Hospitalization, No Medical Examination, Income Tax Benefit. Register Now! www.starhealth.in
Click here

Jana Chaitanya Housing Consumer Court Judgments

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Jana Chaitanya Housing Consumer Court Judgments

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Register Help

Forum Real Estate Residential

+ Submit Your Complaint Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Janachaitanya Housing

LinkBack URL About LinkBacks

Bookmark & Share

Show Printable Version Email this Page Subscribe to this Thread

Rate This Thread

Excellent Good Average Bad Terrible

Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode 1. 09-06-2009 11:59 AM #1

1. The averments of the complaint are as follows:

4. Heard both the counsel.

III) To what relief the complainant is entitled?

Balance to be paid at the time of registration Rs. 1,60,000.00

6. The points that arise for consideration are:

Mothinagar, Opp: IOB, Yerragadda, Hyderabad 18

Balance to be paid at the time of registration Rs. 1,60,000.00

6. The points that arise for consideration are:

10. 10-29-2009 10:05 PM #10

Sidhant Moderator Join Date Sep 2008 Posts 1,699

ORDER 1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

4. Heard both the counsel.

II) To what relief the complainant is entitled?

TCL India Holding | Non Fulfilment of commitments by builder Similar Threads

By admin in forum Judgments Replies: 3 Last Post: 10-14-2009, 07:53 PM

By admin in forum Judgments Replies: 1 Last Post: 09-06-2009, 11:29 AM

By admin in forum Judgments Replies: 1 Last Post: 09-03-2009, 11:24 AM

By Tanu in forum Judgments Replies: 0 Last Post: 09-02-2009, 08:18 AM

View Tag Cloud Bookmarks

Contact Us Consumer Court Archive Privacy Statement Top

S-ar putea să vă placă și