AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MR . C.P. Suresh, Member -The unsuccessful complainant in O.P. No. 615/1997 on the file of the District Forum, Nellore, is the appellant before this Commission.
THE facts in brief are the opposite party has floated a scheme for providing house sites to its members, and the complainant became a member in the said scheme by paying a sum of Rs. 11,200/ - by 4.1.1997 in monthly instalments of Rs. 160/ - each. The opposite party promised to allot a site near Manubolu village, but has shown a plot at 21st Kilometre on the Nellore -Gudur Road, which was not having any approval from authorities. The opposite party has deceived the complainant. The complainant thereupon approached the District Forum for refund of the said amount with interest and damages. The opposite party filed his written version alleging that he has advertised of allotment of house sites in Sy. Nos. 2225, 2226, 2221 and 2223 of Sarvepalli Bit -II village, and land in Sy. No. 427 of Bandepalli village,and Sy. Nos. 74/1A to 74/1H and 74/2D of Kagithalpudi village. The scheme for the allotment of house plot was approved by the authorities and a draw was held on 10.1.1997 before the elders. The complainant got plot No. 21 in Sy. Nos. 2221, 2223, 2225 and 2226 of Sarvepalli Bit -II village through Dip draw dated 10.1.1997, and the opposite party is ready to execute the sale deed provided the complainant bears the expenses for registration and stamp papers, the complainant is aware of the scheme, yet she approached the District Forum with a false case. There is no deficiency of service.
BASING on these pleadings, the District Forum held that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said finding and order, the complaint approached this Commission.
THE point for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ? The complainant claims that she joined the scheme floated by the opposite party on the assurance that she would be provided with a plot at Manubolu village, but in the draw held she was allotted a plot in Sarvepalli village. The opposite party on the other hand claims that he has never included the lands at Manubolu in his scheme. The complainant filed Ex. A -1, the Xerox copy of the pass book issued by the opposite party. It mentions the terms and conditions of the scheme. Ex. A -1 is also further says that the plots would be allotted in Survey Numbers mentioned in the written version filed by the opposite party which are situate at Sarvepalli, Bandepalli and Kagithalapudi villages. Ex. B -2 is the plan approved by the Gram Panchayat, Ex. B -3 is the proceedings prepared in the presence of elders of draw of lots for plots to be allotted to the subscribers. Exs. B -1 to B -4 are Xerox copies of the printed pamphlet, the plan of the layout, the Seventieth Draw particulars and attendance of the members. All these documents clearly show that the opposite party has never promised to provide any house plot at Manubolu, but on the contrary he had assured a plot at Sarvepalli, Bandepalli and Kagithalapudi villages. The complainant has come up with false allegations. The opposite party is, however, ready to execute the sale deed provided, the complainant bears the registration expenses.
WE find no merits in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly with costs of Rs. 500/ - confirming the order of the District Forum. Appeal dismissed.