w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s. Kiran Real Estates & Constructions v/s Nagalla Anand Sai Sudhakar & Another

    F.A. Nos. 357 & 361 of 1998

    Decided On, 29 January 1999

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: H. Venugopal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Served.

Judgment Text

S. Parvatha Rao, President:

1.Counsel for the appellant Mr. H. Venugopal is not present. These appeals i.e., F.A. Nos. 357/ 1998 and 361/1998 have zbeen preferred by the opposite party i.e., M/s. Kiran Real Estates & Constructions, in C.C. Nos. 515/1994 and 519/1994 respectively on the file of the Visakhapatnam District Forum questioning the orders of that District Forum dated 17.3.1998 allowing the same and directing it to pay Rs. 4,900/- and Rs. 12,500/-respectively to the complainants in those two C.Cs. together with interest at 15% per annum from 21.9.1992 and 8.4.1994 respectively till the date of payment. The appellant was also further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs in each of those C.Cs. The receipt of the amounts directed to be repaid by the appellant/opposite party has not been disputed by it before the District Forum. The complainants contended that the amounts were paid for the plots to be formed by the appellant/ opposite party in accordance with the layouts approved by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (‘VUDA’ for short) and the appellant/opposite party contended before the District Forum that they did not undertake to have a layout approved by VUDA in respect of those plots and that they only undertook to have a layout made in accordance with the specifications of VUDA.

2. The District Forum considered the respective contentions and held as follows :

"Even assuming that the opposite party agreed that the layout would be in accordance with the specifications of VUDA as contended by him, it may be pointed out here, that when the complainant visited the site in question he did not find any amentities there and the VUDA specifications promised by the complainant were missing and he only found a shrub- filled, uneven and jungle-like place. This shows that there is no development at all. It is the specific case of the complainant that there is no development at all and the site remained shrub-filled, uneven jungle-like place. This has not been controverted to, by the opposite party. A perusal of the brochure filled in the case reveals that as per VUDA specifications, the layout agreed to be made. Under above circumstances, the contention of the opposite party that he promised a layout which would be in accordance with the specifications of VUDA and he never promissed the approval of VUDA cannot be accepted. The failure on the part of the opposite party in laying out the site in accordance with the specifications of VUDA as per the brochure amounts to deficiency of service and also amount to unfair trade practice."

3. It is not disputed by the appellant that the area in which the appellant had the layout made in respect of the plots in question came within the purview of the VUDA. It follows from this that any layout in that area to be valid must receive the approval and sanction of the VUDA. The attempt of the appellant to se

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ll plots without a layout approved by the VUDA amounts to deficiency in service and also an unfair trade practice. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the orders of the District Forum. In the result the Appeals F.A. Nos. 357/ 1998 and 361/1998 are dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.