Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
D. Appa Rao, President, M. Shreesha and R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Members
A. DEVA RAJ - Appellant
Versus
JANA HARSHA ESTATES `N` CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1268 of 2009
Decided on : 11-08-2011
Mr. N. Vinesh Raj, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. N.S.V. Nageswara Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent
The court established that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act and held the respondent company liable for deficiency in service.
Headnote:
Limitation - Membership Scheme - Consumer Protection Act, Section 24A
Fact of the Case:
The appellant joined a membership scheme and paid for four plots. The respondent company refused to receive the balance amount and execute the sale deed. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum as barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The respondent company was held liable for deficiency in service and directed to refund the amount with interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint is filed within the period of limitation. 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent company in refusing to execute sale deed in respect of four plots. 3. Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The respondent company was found to have committed deficiency in service by refusing to execute the sale deed and was directed to refund the amount with interest.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the District Forum was set aside, and the respondent company was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 99,920 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the last payment of the installment. The costs of the proceedings were quantified at Rs. 2,000.
ORDER
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member - The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.
2. The appellant joined as a member in Dream City-II Garden Unit Scheme floated by the respondent company. The respondent allotted four plots each measuring 120 sq.yards for a consideration of Rs. 36,000 for each plot payable in 50 monthly instalments vide allotment letter dated 29.6.2002. The appellant paid an amount of Rs. 99,920 and the balance amount of Rs. 44,080 was payable on 2.7.2005.
3. The appellant has contended that the executives of the respondent company used to collect the instalments at his residence and they had stopped collecting the amount from 2.7.2005. It is contended that the respondent company refused to receive the balance amount and execute the sale deed.
4. The respondent company resisted the claim on the premise of lack of jurisdiction of the District Forum as also the maintainability of the complaint on the limitation aspect. It is contended that the respondent company allotted four plots in favour of the appellant in the month of March 2002 and the appellant agreed to pay Rs. 580 per month besides Rs. 5,800 in the first month of each calendar year over a period of 50 months. The appellant stated to have paid Rs. 4,580 for each plot and failed to pay the balance amount ofRs. 1,800 per plot and thereafter he had paid Rs. 3,000 per plot in the month of June 2002 and Rs. 1,200 for each plot in the month July 2002 and thereafter he had paid Rs. 1,200 under each passbook. The appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 2,000 under each passbook in the month of July 2003 and he committed default in payment of the instalments from August 2003 to February 2004 and he had paid a sum of Rs. 3,000 under each passbook in the month of March 2004. Thereafter the appellant had paid Rs. 10,000 in the month of July 2005 and the scheme period was completed by 20.6.2006.
5. It is contended that the appellant was irregular in payment of monthly instalments and as per the Clause XI of the membership application the appellant is liable to pay interest @ 2% per month on the dues in case he fails to pay instalments for three months in succession the respondent company is empowered to cancel his membership without issuing any prior notice. It is contended that the appellant had opted for change in payment structure of instalments in the month of June 2002 and accordingly the respondent company had changed the payment structure from Clause 7(c) to 7(a) of the agreement whereby the scheme period was extended to 52 months and its expiry was also accordingly extended from April 2006 to June 2006. The respondent company had cancelled the membership of the appellant in the month of August 2006 and as such the appellant is not eligible to claim any benefits under the scheme and he has filed the complaint on 10.7.2008 which is filed with a delay of 1103 days from the date of last payment of instalment i.e., 2.7.2005. It is contended that the appellant is not eligible for allotment of plot.
6. The appellant filed his affidavit and documents Exs. A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent company its Managing Director P.V.Ramana Murthy has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs. B1 to B7.
7. The points for consideration are
(1) Whether the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation
(2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent company in refusing to execute sale deed in respect of four plots
(3) To what relief
Point Nos. 1 and 2
8. The appellant is the member of Dream City-II, Garden Unit Scheme and on his application in the year 2002 the respondent company had allotted him four plots each measuring 120 sq.yards for a total consideration of Rs. 1,44,000. The respondent company issued four passbooks with membership A/c Nos. S46088 S46089 S46090 and S46091 and allotted the four plots and also informed through allotment letter dated 29.6.2002 that the cons
