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.