TEMPLE TOWN FARMS (P.) LTD. vs U. SUMAN METHA

THE opposite party in COP No. 510/1998 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. THE case of the complainant was as follows : Prompted by the advertisement by the opposite party, the complainant became a member of "Green Acre Scheme" promoted by the opposite party and paid Rs. 75,000 in instalments, Rs. 5,000 towards reservation charges with a Commission of Rs. 11,250 with the opposite party in all Rs. 91,250. However, the promise by the opposite party to carry out the developments works not having been kept, the complaint came to be filed for refund of the amount with interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000.

THE defence set up was as follows : THE complainant was not entitled to Commission. He was also to prove the payment of Rs. 75,000. Full instalments had not been paid by him and as per the terms and conditions, if the complainant failed to make payment of three instalments continuously, the opposite party would forfeit the amount paid by the complainant. THE opposite party planted 60 teak trees and 40 mango saplings and maintained them but they withered away. Before the District Forum, on the side of the complainant, Exs. A-1 to A5 were marked while no document was marked on the side of the opposite party.

The District Forum, on the basis of the materials placed, by order dated 3.7.2001directed refund of the amount of Rs. 91,250 with interest at 12% p.a. from 17.4.1998 till realisation with compensation of Rs. 50,000 and costs of Rs. 1,000. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

IT is clearly established that the complainant had paid the amount of Rs. 91,250. He sent two letters Exs. A4 and A5 by RPAD. There was no response from the opposite party. The opposite party took the stand that they had planted 60 teak trees and 20 mango trees and had maintained them but the trees had decayed. There was no proof produced by the opposite party that they actually planted and the plants withered away. The stand of the opposite party that if three consecutive instalments were not paid the complainant would lose the entire money paid by him was also not substantiated by the opposite party by production of any document relating to the terms and conditions. In such circumstances, we are satisfied that the District Forum has rightly found that there was deficiency in service. However with regard to the award of compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000, we are of the view that the complainant would not be entitled to compensation and also interest on the amount paid by him. The order of the District Forum with regard to compensation cannot be maintained. Consequently, while confirming the decision of the District Forum there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we set aside the order of the District Forum with regard to its direction as to payment of compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000. The appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.