LAWS(APCDRC)-2010-7-6

M.KRISHNA KUMARI Vs. PROJECT MANAGER

Decided On July 30, 2010
M.Krishna Kumari Appellant
V/S
PROJECT MANAGER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant in CD 19/2006 before the District Forum, Vizianagaram and the complaint filed seeking refund of Rs.58,400/- with interest at 24% pa was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case disclose that the opposite parties have introduced a scheme for allotment of house plots near Madhurawada of Paradesipalem under VUDA LP No.10/96. The complainant had joined as one of the Members of the said scheme and as per the terms and conditions he paid all the instalments to the opposite parties within the stipulated period and there were no dues. A pass book bearing no. 279 was issued in which the payments made are entered. Though the entire amount was paid, the opposite parties failed to register the plot as promised. On some pretext or the other, the opposite parties postponed without fulfilling the obligations. The act or omission amounts to deficiency in service. Hence prayed to direct the opposite parties to refund of the amount with interest there on and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

(3.) Resisting the claim the contesting opposite party filed its version in which it is admitted that the first opposite party had been carrying on Real Estate Business at Visakhapatnam and that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since the Lay-out is situate at Visakhapatnam limits, no cause of action or part of cause of action arose at Vizianagaram. It is an admitted fact that the complainant joined the Group for allotment of the housing site at Madhurawada and paid an amount of Rs.57,900/- out of Rs.67,500/-. The last date of payment was on 14.04.2000. The land was developed by obtaining lay out permission from the VUDA authority. The other members were registered with plots after development. The opposite party had invested a lot of amount in the land which was developed and so the complainant cannot seek for refund of the amount. There is no deficiency in service at all. Further the complaint is barred by limitation.