http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/26/stories/2008022658900300.htm
http://www.r2iclubforums.com/forums/f17/ameenpur-sai-ambica-jana-chaitanya-5276/
Consumercourt
Friday, December 11, 2009
Sai Bhavani ,Sabbavarupuvari Street, Rajahmundry,
C.C.No.10/2008
Between:Maragani Hemalatha, W/o Sai Babu, 40 years,Motheywari Thota, Eluru, W G Dist. ..Complainant.
A N DJanachaitanya 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.
O R D E R(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 party’s 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.
Between:Maragani Hemalatha, W/o Sai Babu, 40 years,Motheywari Thota, Eluru, W G Dist. ..Complainant.
A N DJanachaitanya 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.
O R D E R(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 party’s 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.
Sai Vishnu Phase-IIA
G.Sree Ramya, D/o. G. Velangini Rao, Hindu, aged 14 years, residing at Emmanual Street, Gnanapuram, Visakhapatnam . …ComplainantAnd: M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Reptd. By its Managing Director, Sri M.Sudhakar, Hindu, aged 50 years, regional Office, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam ... Opposite Parties: O R D E R :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 defaulter’s 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.
Consumer Complaint No:17/2009
Consumer Complaint No:17/2009
Between: Smt. Parry Indrani Prasad, W/o Hari Prasad, Hindu, aged 47 years, R/o D.No.14-1-6/1, Nowroji Road, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam – 2.…
Complainant.And:1.M/s Janachaitanya Housing Limited, rep. by its
Chairman & Managing Director, Madala Sudhakar, S/o Late Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years,
Chowdary Mansion, Ameerpeta, Hyderabad - 500 016.2.M/s
Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager,
office at 2nd Floor, 17/57, Mangalagiri Shopping Complex, G.T. Road, New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 530 026. …
Opposite partiesThis case is coming on for final hearing on 03-03-2009 in the presence of Sri.A.V.C.N.Nageswara Rao, 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:
: O R D E R :1.This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for direction to the opposite parties:a)To refund Rs.29,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. till realizationb)To pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and c)To pay costs.In brief the case of the complainants is:1.That she joined in Sai Sagar layout of the opposite parties with a view to purchase house site. The complainant started making payment from 13-12-1995, the sale consideration on installment. That the opposite parties issued pass book No.434. The complainant in all paid Rs.29,000/- as on 05-09-1998. That the complainant came to know that the opposite parties did not obtain the approval of the layout as such the complainant requested the opposite parties number of times for refund of the amount. Inspite of personal approaches by the complainant, the opposite parties failed to refund. That there is deficiency of service, as a result of which complainant was put to lot of mental agony. 2.Opposite parties filed counter contending the complainant paid part of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.29,000/- only. That the complainant defaulted to pay the residuary sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- per plot and committed breach of contract. Rest of the complaint allegations are denied specifically. That the opposite party has right to forfeit the deposited amount of the complainant without any notice under defaulter clause towards liquidated damages. That the complaint is fictitious and there is no cause of action to the complaint, hence prayed for dismissal of complaint. 3.Ex.A.1 & Ex.A.2 are marked. No documents are marked for opposite parties. Heard both sides. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service?4.Ex.A.1 is the pass book standing in the name of the complainant. Ex.A.1 is original pass books issued by the opposite party. Ex.A.1 reveals that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.29,000/- under each pass book as on 05-09-1998. Thus it is clear that the opposite party having floated the scheme, received substantial amounts from the complainant but failed to obtain necessary approvals from the competent authorities though the installments were collected from the year 1995. These circumstances are proof positive that there is deficiency in service. Direction for registration of the plot cannot be given as there are no approvals from the competent authorities. Accordingly this point is answered. 5.In the result, complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.29,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., from 05-09-1998 till realization. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
Between: Smt. Parry Indrani Prasad, W/o Hari Prasad, Hindu, aged 47 years, R/o D.No.14-1-6/1, Nowroji Road, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam – 2.…
Complainant.And:1.M/s Janachaitanya Housing Limited, rep. by its
Chairman & Managing Director, Madala Sudhakar, S/o Late Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years,
Chowdary Mansion, Ameerpeta, Hyderabad - 500 016.2.M/s
Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager,
office at 2nd Floor, 17/57, Mangalagiri Shopping Complex, G.T. Road, New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 530 026. …
Opposite partiesThis case is coming on for final hearing on 03-03-2009 in the presence of Sri.A.V.C.N.Nageswara Rao, 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:
: O R D E R :1.This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for direction to the opposite parties:a)To refund Rs.29,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. till realizationb)To pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and c)To pay costs.In brief the case of the complainants is:1.That she joined in Sai Sagar layout of the opposite parties with a view to purchase house site. The complainant started making payment from 13-12-1995, the sale consideration on installment. That the opposite parties issued pass book No.434. The complainant in all paid Rs.29,000/- as on 05-09-1998. That the complainant came to know that the opposite parties did not obtain the approval of the layout as such the complainant requested the opposite parties number of times for refund of the amount. Inspite of personal approaches by the complainant, the opposite parties failed to refund. That there is deficiency of service, as a result of which complainant was put to lot of mental agony. 2.Opposite parties filed counter contending the complainant paid part of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.29,000/- only. That the complainant defaulted to pay the residuary sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- per plot and committed breach of contract. Rest of the complaint allegations are denied specifically. That the opposite party has right to forfeit the deposited amount of the complainant without any notice under defaulter clause towards liquidated damages. That the complaint is fictitious and there is no cause of action to the complaint, hence prayed for dismissal of complaint. 3.Ex.A.1 & Ex.A.2 are marked. No documents are marked for opposite parties. Heard both sides. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service?4.Ex.A.1 is the pass book standing in the name of the complainant. Ex.A.1 is original pass books issued by the opposite party. Ex.A.1 reveals that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.29,000/- under each pass book as on 05-09-1998. Thus it is clear that the opposite party having floated the scheme, received substantial amounts from the complainant but failed to obtain necessary approvals from the competent authorities though the installments were collected from the year 1995. These circumstances are proof positive that there is deficiency in service. Direction for registration of the plot cannot be given as there are no approvals from the competent authorities. Accordingly this point is answered. 5.In the result, complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.29,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., from 05-09-1998 till realization. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Consumer Complaint No:15/2009 Visakhapatnam
Consumer Complaint No:15/2009
Between: M. Eswara Rao, being minor rep. by his mother Smt. M. Ammoramma, W/o Ammoru, Hindu, aged 36 years, R/o R.H. Colony, Gangavaram, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. … Complainant.And:M/s Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, D.No.47-3-13, II Floor, 5th line, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam – 26… Opposite partyThis case is coming on for final hearing on 03-03-2009 in the presence of Sri.Vajjala Shammi, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri.R.Lakshamana Rao, Advocate for the Opposite party and having stood over till this date the Forum delivered the following order:
: O R D E R :1.This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for direction to the opposite party:a)To register a VUDA approved plot by taking the remaining sale consideration or b)To refund Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.c)To pay Rs.11,000/- towards compensation and d)To pay costs.In brief the case of the complainant is:1.That he joined in Sai Vishnu B layout of the opposite party with a view to purchase house site. The complainant started making payment from 26-02-2002, the sale consideration on installment. That the opposite party issued pass book No.624. The complainant in all paid Rs.15,000/- as on 17-07-2006. That the complainant came to know that the opposite party did not obtain the approval of the layout as such the complainant requested the opposite party number of times for refund of the amount. Inspite of legal notice got issued by the complainant, the opposite party failed to refund. That there is deficiency of service, as a result of which complainant was put to lot of mental agony. 2.Opposite parties filed counter contending the complainant paid part of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.15,000/- only. That the complainant defaulted to pay the residuary sale consideration of Rs.73,000/- and committed breach of contract. Rest of the complaint allegations are denied specifically. That the opposite party has right to forfeit the deposited amount of the complainant without any notice under defaulter clause towards liquidated damages. That the complaint is fictitious and there is no cause of action to the complaint, hence prayed for dismissal of complaint. 3.Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 are marked. No documents are marked for opposite parties. Heard both sides. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service?4.Ex.A.1 is the pass book standing in the name of the complainant. Ex.A.1 is original pass books issued by the opposite party. Ex.A.1 reveals that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- under each pass book as on 17-07-2002. Thus it is clear that the opposite party having floated the scheme, received substantial amounts from the complainant but failed to obtain necessary approvals from the competent authorities though the installments were collected from the year 2002. These circumstances are proof positive that there is deficiency in service. Direction for registration of the plot cannot be given as there are no approvals from the competent authorities. Accordingly this point is answered. 5.In the result, complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., from 17-07-2002 till realization. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2,500/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
Between: M. Eswara Rao, being minor rep. by his mother Smt. M. Ammoramma, W/o Ammoru, Hindu, aged 36 years, R/o R.H. Colony, Gangavaram, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. … Complainant.And:M/s Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, D.No.47-3-13, II Floor, 5th line, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam – 26… Opposite partyThis case is coming on for final hearing on 03-03-2009 in the presence of Sri.Vajjala Shammi, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri.R.Lakshamana Rao, Advocate for the Opposite party and having stood over till this date the Forum delivered the following order:
: O R D E R :1.This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for direction to the opposite party:a)To register a VUDA approved plot by taking the remaining sale consideration or b)To refund Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.c)To pay Rs.11,000/- towards compensation and d)To pay costs.In brief the case of the complainant is:1.That he joined in Sai Vishnu B layout of the opposite party with a view to purchase house site. The complainant started making payment from 26-02-2002, the sale consideration on installment. That the opposite party issued pass book No.624. The complainant in all paid Rs.15,000/- as on 17-07-2006. That the complainant came to know that the opposite party did not obtain the approval of the layout as such the complainant requested the opposite party number of times for refund of the amount. Inspite of legal notice got issued by the complainant, the opposite party failed to refund. That there is deficiency of service, as a result of which complainant was put to lot of mental agony. 2.Opposite parties filed counter contending the complainant paid part of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.15,000/- only. That the complainant defaulted to pay the residuary sale consideration of Rs.73,000/- and committed breach of contract. Rest of the complaint allegations are denied specifically. That the opposite party has right to forfeit the deposited amount of the complainant without any notice under defaulter clause towards liquidated damages. That the complaint is fictitious and there is no cause of action to the complaint, hence prayed for dismissal of complaint. 3.Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 are marked. No documents are marked for opposite parties. Heard both sides. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service?4.Ex.A.1 is the pass book standing in the name of the complainant. Ex.A.1 is original pass books issued by the opposite party. Ex.A.1 reveals that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- under each pass book as on 17-07-2002. Thus it is clear that the opposite party having floated the scheme, received substantial amounts from the complainant but failed to obtain necessary approvals from the competent authorities though the installments were collected from the year 2002. These circumstances are proof positive that there is deficiency in service. Direction for registration of the plot cannot be given as there are no approvals from the competent authorities. Accordingly this point is answered. 5.In the result, complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., from 17-07-2002 till realization. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2,500/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
Sai Kamakshi layout Visakhapatnam VUDA
Consumer Complaint No:13/2009
Between: Smt. G. Madhavi, W/o Eswaradu, Hindu, aged 33 years,
R/o D.No.MIG /210, Gullalapalem, Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam …
Complainant.And:M/s Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager,
D.No.47-3-13, II Floor, 5th line, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam – 26 … Opposite partyThis case is coming on for final hearing on 03-03-2009 in the presence of Sri Vajjala Shammi, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri.R.Lakshmana Rao, Advocate for the Opposite party and having stood over till this date the Forum delivered the following order:
: O R D E R :1.This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for direction to the opposite party:a)To register a VUDA approved plot by taking the remaining sale consideration or b)To refund Rs.61,500/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.c)To pay Rs.21,000/- towards compensation and d)To pay costs.In brief the case of the complainants is:1.That she joined in Sai Kamakshi layout of the opposite party with a view to purchase house site. The complainant started making payment from 28-09-2002, the sale consideration on installment. That the opposite party issued pass book No.117. The complainant in all paid Rs.61,500/- as on 28-02-2006. That the complainant came to know that the opposite party did not obtain the approval of the layout as such the complainant requested the opposite party number of times for refund of the amount. Inspite of legal notice got issued by the complainant, the opposite party failed to refund. That there is deficiency of service, as a result of which complainant was put to lot of mental agony. 2.Opposite parties filed counter contending the complainant paid part of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.61,500/- only. That the complainant defaulted to pay the residuary sale consideration of Rs.1,14,720/- per plot and committed breach of contract. Rest of the complaint allegations are denied specifically. That the opposite party has right to forfeit the deposited amount of the complainant without any notice under defaulter clause towards liquidated damages. That the complaint is fictitious and there is no cause of action to the complaint, hence prayed for dismissal of complaint. 3.Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 are marked. No documents are marked for opposite parties. Heard both sides. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service?4.Ex.A.1 is the pass book standing in the name of the complainant. Ex.A.1 is original pass books issued by the opposite party. Ex.A.1 reveals that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.61,500/- under each pass book as on 28-02-2006. Thus it is clear that the opposite party having floated the scheme, received substantial amounts from the complainant but failed to obtain necessary approvals from the competent authorities though the installments were collected from the year 2002. These circumstances are proof positive that there is deficiency in service. Direction for registration of the plot cannot be given as there are no approvals from the competent authorities. Accordingly this point is answered. 5.In the result, complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.61,500/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., from 28-02-2006 till realization. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.11,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 4th day of March,2009.Sd/- Sd/-Male Member President Sd/- District Consumer Forum-I,Female Member Visakhapatnam.
Between: Smt. G. Madhavi, W/o Eswaradu, Hindu, aged 33 years,
R/o D.No.MIG /210, Gullalapalem, Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam …
Complainant.And:M/s Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager,
D.No.47-3-13, II Floor, 5th line, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam – 26 … Opposite partyThis case is coming on for final hearing on 03-03-2009 in the presence of Sri Vajjala Shammi, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri.R.Lakshmana Rao, Advocate for the Opposite party and having stood over till this date the Forum delivered the following order:
: O R D E R :1.This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for direction to the opposite party:a)To register a VUDA approved plot by taking the remaining sale consideration or b)To refund Rs.61,500/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.c)To pay Rs.21,000/- towards compensation and d)To pay costs.In brief the case of the complainants is:1.That she joined in Sai Kamakshi layout of the opposite party with a view to purchase house site. The complainant started making payment from 28-09-2002, the sale consideration on installment. That the opposite party issued pass book No.117. The complainant in all paid Rs.61,500/- as on 28-02-2006. That the complainant came to know that the opposite party did not obtain the approval of the layout as such the complainant requested the opposite party number of times for refund of the amount. Inspite of legal notice got issued by the complainant, the opposite party failed to refund. That there is deficiency of service, as a result of which complainant was put to lot of mental agony. 2.Opposite parties filed counter contending the complainant paid part of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.61,500/- only. That the complainant defaulted to pay the residuary sale consideration of Rs.1,14,720/- per plot and committed breach of contract. Rest of the complaint allegations are denied specifically. That the opposite party has right to forfeit the deposited amount of the complainant without any notice under defaulter clause towards liquidated damages. That the complaint is fictitious and there is no cause of action to the complaint, hence prayed for dismissal of complaint. 3.Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 are marked. No documents are marked for opposite parties. Heard both sides. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service?4.Ex.A.1 is the pass book standing in the name of the complainant. Ex.A.1 is original pass books issued by the opposite party. Ex.A.1 reveals that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.61,500/- under each pass book as on 28-02-2006. Thus it is clear that the opposite party having floated the scheme, received substantial amounts from the complainant but failed to obtain necessary approvals from the competent authorities though the installments were collected from the year 2002. These circumstances are proof positive that there is deficiency in service. Direction for registration of the plot cannot be given as there are no approvals from the competent authorities. Accordingly this point is answered. 5.In the result, complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.61,500/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., from 28-02-2006 till realization. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.11,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 4th day of March,2009.Sd/- Sd/-Male Member President Sd/- District Consumer Forum-I,Female Member Visakhapatnam.
sai ambica project in Ameenpur
#2 sai ambica project in Ameenpur
bayareadesi
vbmenu_register("postmenu_73937", true);
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: san ramon, USA
Indian City: Hyderabad
Posts: 6
Ameenpur: Sai Ambica by Jana Chaitanya
Does any one here have plots in sai ambica project in Ameenpur? These guys( JC) have been giving me a go -around saying my plots are mortgaged and are still waiting for final approval.Two years ago I went to Huda office in secunderabad, the huda official was very nice and said this layout would have final approval out in couple of months, to my pleasant surprise. Now after 1/2 years later, its this month or 'few' months. I tried to ring up JC office in Taramandal complex and the number is disconnected. If anyone in this forum is in a similar bind , can we follow up on this project ie., going to huda, registration and may be possible developments on the site in the future. G!
bayareadesi
vbmenu_register("postmenu_73937", true);
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: san ramon, USA
Indian City: Hyderabad
Posts: 6
Ameenpur: Sai Ambica by Jana Chaitanya
Does any one here have plots in sai ambica project in Ameenpur? These guys( JC) have been giving me a go -around saying my plots are mortgaged and are still waiting for final approval.Two years ago I went to Huda office in secunderabad, the huda official was very nice and said this layout would have final approval out in couple of months, to my pleasant surprise. Now after 1/2 years later, its this month or 'few' months. I tried to ring up JC office in Taramandal complex and the number is disconnected. If anyone in this forum is in a similar bind , can we follow up on this project ie., going to huda, registration and may be possible developments on the site in the future. G!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)