Pruthivi Avenues Pvt. Ltd vs Y. Alexander

All these Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 7.2.2018, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") whereby the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner have been dismissed and orders passed by the District Forum have been confirmed.

As per office report, there is a delay of 175 days in filing the Revision Petitions. An Application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed along with the Revision Petitions. I have heard Mr.Byrapaneni, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the averments made in the Applications seeking condonation of delay. Cause shown is sufficient. The Applications are allowed and the Delay is condoned. The Revision Petitions be treated as having been filed within limitation.

Heard Mr.Byrapaneni, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 7.2.2018, passed by the State Commission. The State Commission has recorded a categorical finding in Paras 12, 13 and 14 of the impugned order that the Complainant/Respondent had deposited the amount of ₹1,32,000/- and the project in which the Complainant/Respondent had been allotted the plot, has not been fully developed and therefore, confirmed the order passed by the District Forum wherein the District Forum had directed the Petitioner herein to refund the entire amount deposited by the Complainant with interest @ 18% per annum from 2.9.2009 till 15.6.2012 and thereafter with interest @ 9% from 16.6.2012 till realization to the Complainants with costs of ₹2,000/-. For ready reference, Paras 12, 13 and 14 of the order passed by the State Commission are reproduced below :

"12. Admittedly, the appellant had not obtained layout approval by the time of issuing application form at the time of commencement of the scheme. The appellant stated to have been obtained layout sanction from the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning in the month of September 2009. The appellant cannot stretch the protection cover provided by Clauses 13 and 15 of the terms of the Application Form as to its liability that if any member cancels his allotment he would get only 50% of the amount paid by him and that if any member commits default in payment of 3 consecutive installments the appellant is entitled to forfeit the amount paid by the member. But these clauses are not applicable to the respondent because the appellant had not carried out development work as promised. The development works in the venture includes Black Top Roads, Electric Lines, Water Lines Underground Drainage System and Avenue Plantation etc. The appellant had not filed any evidence such as photos to show that the venture was commenced and that they are laying the blacktop roads, electric lines, water lines underground drainage system etc. Mere filing of a DTCP approvals that too during the pendency of the appeal does not show its bonafides that the venture was developed and also that they have executed several sale deeds to their members. The appellant did not file any sale deed of any member that it had registered the sale deed of the plot which is fully developed one. The appellant failed to file photographs to establish the case of the appellant that they have developed the project as promised and the respondent opted to seek refund of the amount. The respondent had not opted to pay the balance amount on the premise that the plot and the venture thereof is not developed.

Before filing the complaint in the District Forum the respondent approached Alternate Consumer Dispute Redressal Cell complaining that he came to know from the newspapers that the lands offered for sale by the appellant are of assigned lands and hence he stopped payment of further amount and requested to refund of the amount already paid. But the appellant refused to refund the same and instead offered the plots in another venture which is not accepted by the respondent. The Alternate Consumer Dispute Redressal Cell in its proceedings dated 11.11.2011 recorded as follows:

Both complainant and opposite party (Legal Adviser) present. Opposite party has requested for one week time. Hence, this Cell decided to call again on 19.11.2011.

31.12.2011

The complainant has informed that the representative of Pruthvi Avenue Pvt Ltd., has shown another plot which is not the same as they have promised. But the complainant was not willing to take the other plot, hence, this complainant asked for refund of the amount paid. The legal advisor of the Op has given a letter stating that the Director is on tour and expected in the last week of January 2012. The complainant has not accepted for wait for one more month as they have already taken (2) months. Hence, the complainant wants to go to District Forum.

From the above it is clear that the venture was not developed by the appellant and for that the appellant sought for one week time and offered another plot which is not accepted by the respondent and requested for refund of the amount. When the respondent lost confidence on the appellant, he sought for refund of the amount which is reasonable and the appellant is liable for the refund the amount paid by him."

From perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, I find that the facts being not in dispute, the payment of the amount by the Complainant/Respondent and the project being incomplete, the District Forum as well as the State Commission was perfectly justified in directing refund of the amount along with interest. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the District Forum as also the State Commission were not justified in directing payment of interest @ 18% per annum from 2.9.2009, as it is very excessive and exorbitant. On a query being raised as to what is the rate of interest the Petitioner charges from the allottees in the event of default in paying the instalment of making payment of the agreed amount, the reply was that the Petitioner charges interest @ 18% per annum for the period of default committed by the allottees/purchasers. That being so, in my considered opinion, the District Forum as well as the State Commission were perfectly justified in directing the Petitioner to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till 15.6.2012, which is the date of filing of the Complaint and thereafter reduced it to 9%.

Findings recorded by the Fora below are based on appreciation of evidence and material on record and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, which may warrant interference in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction.

The Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed.