S.V.RAMANA vs TVB ACHARY

THE opposite parties in OP 932/95 District Forum, Hyderabad preferred this appeal against the order of the District Forum, whereby it directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs. 58750/- with interest by way of compensation at 18% p.a. on Rs. 38750/- from 5.4.1992 and on Rs. 20,000/- from 12.5.1992 and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

ACCORDING to the complainant, the first opposite party i.e. SVR Estate Developers of which the second opposite party is the proprietor showed a proposal layout plan of S. Nos. 182 to 191 situated at Popalguda village in Hyderabad District marked as Ex. A3 which made number of plots of 200 sq. yards each and the complainant agreed to purchase two plots bearing Nos. 80 and 81 at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. yard and paid an advance of Rs. 38,750/- on 5.4.1992 as evidence by Ex. A1 receipt and Rs. 20,000/- on 12.5.1992 as evidenced by Ex. A2 receipt to the opposite parties being the entire consideration of the said plots. But the opposite parties failed to register the sale deeds in respect of the said plots in spite of a number of representations made by the complainant and issuance of legal notice on 7.8.1995 which was acknowledged by the opposite party, the above complaint was filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties for refund of the amounts with interest and damages. Notice taken out to the opposite parties was accepted by the first opposite party. But the notice sent to him as proprietor of SVR Estates Developers was not served on him. But since it is the same person against whom notice was already served, as they did not appear, they were set ex parte.

The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs. A-l to A-6.

THE District Forum held on a consideration of the documents Exs. A-1 to A-6 that the opposite parties showed the layout plan Ex. A-3 and the complainant agreed to purchase two plots and paid in all a sum of Rs. 58750/- as evidenced by Exs. A-l and A-2 and in spite of notice Ex. A-4, the opposite parties did not execute the sale deeds and as they have not chosen to refund the amount, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the District Forum directed refund of the said amount with interest as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.

THE documents filed by the complainant clinchingly establish that the complainant paid to the opposite parties a sum of Rs. 38750/- on 5.4.1992 as evidenced by Ex. A-l receipt and Rs. '' 20,000/- on 12.5.1992 as evidenced by Ex. A-2 receipt and as the opposite parties did not execute the sale deeds and also failed to refund the amount in spite of notice issued by the complainant and remained ex parte, before the District Forum, the District Forum rightly directed refund of the amount, with interest. THE appellants/opposite parties are granted 3 months'' time from today i.e. the date of this order for payment of the amount as directed by the District Forum. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.