ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao and T. Ashok Kumar, Members
Konda Krishna —Appellant
versus
Huzurabad Surya Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. —Opp. Parties
FA No. 127 of 2011 against CC 643 of 2009
Decided on 14.8.2012
Result: Appeal allowed.
T. Ashok Kumar, Member—This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 23.9.2010 in CC 643/2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Hyderabad. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant is an Advocate by profession. The OPs offered to sell a plot at Rs. 81,000 for 30 monthly insalments admeasuring 200 sq. yards and 1st instalment is Rs. 7,200 and each instalment is @
Rs. 1,200 and 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th are @ Rs. 6,000 and 30th month is @ Rs. 9,000 a their new venture at Kuntloor Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, RR District. Having attracted by the wide publicity and advertisement given by the opposite party inviting the public to book the plots in the opposite parties venture the complainant joined as a member in the said venture on 29.12.2002 by paying an amount of Rs.15,000 and the opposite parties issued a pass book bearing No. 272 and allotted plot bearing No. 230 to him. On 16.2.2006, the complainant has also paid an amount of Rs. 82,795 and the opposite parties also issued a receipt for the same and had taken a letter for land purchase offer from the complainant on the same day i.e. on 16.2.2006 and agreed to allot the plot bearing No. 230 and 231. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 80,000 towards last instalment on 11.3.2006 and the opposite parties issued receipt for the same. The opposite parties requested the complainant to pay the registration charges and as per the request the complainant on 16.2.2008 paid Rs.8,000 towards registration charges for plot No. 230 in Srinivasa Colony, Kuntloor Village, RR District and in spite of receiving the amounts and request, OPs did not register the plots. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant sent letters dated 19.3.2008 and again on 24.2.2009 to the opposite parties but did not give any reply which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the complaint to direct the OPs to allot the plots in another venture alongwith clear title and all approvals or alternatively to pay the present market value of the plot allotted to the complainant or to refund the amount paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. alongwith compensation.
3. OPs filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under:
The complaint is not maintainable in law nor on facts and the dispute is not a consumer dispute. The original owner of the land had raised disputes after the value of the lands escalated and instigated the complainant to file this complaint. There is no clarity as to when the complainant paid the first instalment and when he obtained the alleged pass book as such the complaint is barred by limitation. In view of the criminal complaints filed by some agreement holders, the police had taken concerned registers and seized the office of the opposite party in the year 2006 only and that they never received any amounts from the any persons including this complainant regarding the alleged payment made in the year 2008. The document Nos.3 to 8 are forged and fabricated to file this case. It is also not clear, that whether the complainant booked the plot No. 230 or 231 also. The opposite parties denied the alleged payments made by the complainant and also denied the receipt of , letters from the complainant and never acknowledged. The opposite parties denies the authenticity of the entries in the pass book and receipts, as complainant and several other persons tampered the entries in the said pass book in order to show that the payments were made. The present case is of Civil nature and not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act and that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both sides f
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.