RUTHALA SOMAIAH ALIAS SOMESWARA RAO Vs. MY HOME BUILDERS PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals emanate from a single order passed in C.D.No.80 of 2005 by the District Forum-II, Vijayawada. The complainant has preferred F.A.No.1286 of 2006 while the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have filed F.A.No.1372 of 2008 and the opposite party no.3 has preferred F.A.No.1065 of 2009.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 19.11.1997 towards advance for purchase of shop no.9 that was allotted to him. Subsequently the complainant paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 29.4.1999 and Rs.25,000/- on 29.11.2000. The opposite parties executed an agreement of sale in favour of the complainant in respect of the shop no.9 and agreed to deliver possession of the shop no.9 with all amenities and specifications mentioned in the agreement of sale. The complainant requested the opposite parties to furnish him a copy of the approved layout plan as he received information that some of the shops were demolished by the municipal authorities Vijayawada. The opposite parties promised him that they would furnish copy of the approved plan and requested for time. As per the demand of the opposite parties the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on 16.7.2003 for the expenses of the approved layout plan and Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of obtaining electricity connection. On 16.7.2003 the opposite parties executed sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the allotted shop no.9 with undivided interest therein jointly with other allottees. The opposite parties have fraudulently shown the consideration as Rs.65,000/- only in the sale deed dated 16.10.2003. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,82,000/- in total to the opposite parties and in addition to that amount the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the association of the apartments towards electricity connection charges since the opposite parties have not paid any amount for the said purpose for which they have collected Rs.10,000/- from the complainant.

(3.) For the purpose of obtaining loan from the Andhra Bank to develop his business, the complainant submitted copy of approved plan furnished by the opposite parties to an allottee of the apartment. The bank authorities informed the complainant that the plan indicates existence of way in the place of the shop no.9 and as such no loan could be sanctioned to the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite parties to allot him another plot having approved lay out or refund him the amount with interest. The opposite party had not allotted another flat nor did they refund the amount to the complainant. The complainant eke out of living by running his business in the shop allotted to him. The opposite parties have to refund the sum of Rs.2,82,000/- with interest to the complainant since there was deficiency in service on their part.