I. CHAKRAVARTHI Vs. G.P.R. HOUSING PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the complainants dis-satisfied with the order of the Dist. Forum directing the respondents to refund the amount instead of directing them to execute sale deed.

(2.) The case of the complainants in brief is that complainant Nos. 2 & 3 are son and wife of complainant No. 1 respectively. They joined as members in the scheme floated by the respondents to sell house plots each consisting of 200 sq.yds for Rs. 45,999/- payable in instalments. They were allotted pass books. While the first complainant had paid Rs. 37,100/-, second complainant had paid Rs. 42,050/- and the third complainant had paid Rs. 35,700 totalling to Rs. 1,14,850/-. When they sought for registration of the plots the respondents are delaying on one pretext or the other. In the process they suffered mental agony. Therefore they sought registration of plots or in the alternative refund the said amount together with interest, compensation and costs.

(3.) The respondents resisted the case. It had admitted that it was doing real estate business, and admitted that the complainant No. 1 joined the group for allotment of house sites in Dolphin Enclave at Bheemunipatnam. However, it alleged that the Dist. Forum at Visakapatnam had no jurisdiction since the payments were made at Hyderabad, He paid Rs. 37,100/- as against Rs. 53,000/-. He was a defaulter and therefore not entitled to claim refund of the amount. The second complainant joined the group for allotment of house site at Kanakadurga Nagar at Lankelapalem. He paid Rs. 40,350/- as against Rs. 46,000/-. He was a defaulter and therefore not entitled to claim refund of the amount. The third complainant had paid the amount for house site in Gayatri Gardens at Hyderabad. Since the records were at Hyderabad they were unable to verify. They had obtained lay out plan from urban development authority. It had developed the land by laying roads, drains and other infrastructure. In fact the APTRANSCO also started laying high tension lines. It filed a suit against APTRANSO for changing route alignment and in the process there was delay in getting necessary permission from the urban development authority. They have also provided water facility. Since they have invested huge amount, directing them to refund of amount would put them into financial difficulties. There was no deficiency in service on their part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.