ORDER (ORAL)

The complaint is filed on 23.06.2017 U/s.12 of C.P.Act,1986, to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,72,685/- with interest @24% p.a., from 15.04.2013 till realization; to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant having approached by the opposite party with attractive plans, the complainant purchased flat No.7-32, 7th floor admeasuring plinth area of 1247 Sft., with car parking area @Rs.1,775/- per Sft., for a total sale consideration of Rs.23,63,425/-; and entered into agreement of sale in April, 2013; that in all complainant paid Rs.4,72,685/- by 27.04.2013 and promised by opposite party to handover possession within 24 months from the date of agreement, but not made any constructions at all inspite of several requests made by the complainant and it amounts to deficiency of service; that the complainant got issued a legal notice on 22.04.2015 though it was served no reply was given; that the complainant suffered mental agony due to the actions of the opposite party No.2; hence, the complaint.

3. Originally the complaint was filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad and numbered as CC. No. 392/2015, but vide order dt.06.03.2017 the complaint was returned to file before the State Commission and in pursuance of the same the present complaint is filed before this commission.

4. The brief averments of the written version of opposite party No. 2 which is adopted by opposite party No.1, is that the complaint is not maintainable under law or on facts; that claiming refund is not maintainable under CP Act; that the complainant intended to purchase a flat at Pocharam Village to be constructed by the opposite party; that both are them entered into an agreement of sale where under, complainant was supposed to pay entire consideration within 24 months, but due to lack of funds paid only Rs.4,72,685/- and failed to pay the balance and due to the same it is clear that the complainant himself committed breach of the clauses; that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party; that this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since it should have been filed in a Civil Court. With this, requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

5. Before this commission evidence affidavit complainant is filed as PW1 and she also filed additional evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. Evidence affidavit Mr. J. Sunil Sachdev as RW1 is filed for the opposite party and no document is marked for the opposite parties. Heard the arguments of complainant counsel and the arguments the opposite parties are treated as heard and liberty was given to them to file written arguments but it was not availed.

6. The following points are settled for discussion:—

(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party towards the complainant?

(ii) Whether the complaint is barred by time? If not the complainant is entitled for the amounts as claimed?

(iii) Relief?

7. Points No.1 to 3:- RW1 not disputed about the receipt of amounts from PW1 in connection with offer of sale made by him for the purchase of flat by PW1 at Pocharam Village in Ghatkesar Mandal. Ex.A1 is the printed receipt issued by RW1 dt.15.04.2013 in favour of PW1 for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is hand written receipt issued by RW1 on his letter head in favour of PW1 for Rs.3,72,685/-. This amount was received on 27.04.2013. Ex.A3 is the sheet of calculation prepared under the hand of the same person who drafted the receipt under Ex.A2 giving details of the cost of the flat No. 732 offered for sale @Rs.1,775/- per Sft. Admeasuring 1,247 Sft. = Rs.22,13,425/- and for car parking Rs.1,50,000/- totalling Rs.23,63,475/- and after deducting the amount paid by PW1 to the tune of Rs.4,72,685/- the final payable amount was shown it Rs.18,19,740/- payable in 24 instalments @Rs.78,781/-. With the above calculations it is very clear that