Per Smt. T. Suneetha, Member: This complaint is filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.7,20,000/- towards rent of the complainant from the year 2007 with interest, Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint and to allot an independent house immediately under Rajiv Gruhakalpa Scheme or under Prathanamanthri Avas Yojana Scheme, to the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case: The opposite party No.1 in the year 2007 by publishing in Daily Telugu News Paper announced, about the Government to construct houses under Rajiv Gruhakalpa Phase II in Guntur and invited applications from the public. The complainant applied by obtaining an application form bearing No.1021004815 for Rs.250/- from the office of the opposite party No.2 under transaction No.PBPM00339792 dt.19.04.2007 vide consumer No.1021004815. The complainant paid Rs.5,000/- towards processing fee through Andhra Bank, Pattabhipuram Branch, Guntur in favour of A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad vide demand draft No.213539 dt.09.04.2007 by transaction No.00340380 dt.20.04.2007. The complainant submitted required documents, no house affidavit, income certificate, self-declaration along with application form in e-Seva, Government of A.P., Pattabhipuram for an independent double bed room under Category II. The opposite parties did not allot any house to him. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and its officers i.e. UPACELL, Project Officer, City Planner, Town Planning Department several times and gave representations dt.09.08.2009, 05.07.2011, 16.05.2013, 25.04.2015, 14.03.2016 and 27.09.2017, requesting to allot a house but they did not respond. Since 2007 the complainant is living in rented house in A.T.Agraharam and Venugopala Nagar by paying rent which amounted to Rs.7,20,000/-. The complainant had to apply leave for the duty several times and invested lot of time and energy and suffered mental agony. The opposite parties committed deficiency of service by not allotting any house to the complainant and they are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the complaint.
3. The version of the opposite party No.1 in brief: This opposite party issued guidelines, that it will take up the scheme on arrival of demand and land will be acquired and completed within two years. The complainant applied for house in Guntur but as there is no land in Guntur, Government has allotted the land in Narasaraopet only, due to poor demand, the project was stopped at Narasaraopet. This opposite party received more than one lakh applications. After bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh due to financial crisis all projects were stopped. After negotiations with the Government this opposite party has taken decision to refund the amounts. But the complainant who is eligible for refund under this Scheme had not represented to the opposite party No.1 but corresponded opposite party No.2 only. The complainant purposefully has given the previous address of the opposite party No.1, to see that the notice will not be received by this opposite party, in time. The complainant is not eligible to get the house, because he has not contributed initially, a minimum of 25% of the cost of the house. The PMAY Scheme was started on 01.06.2015 but the complaint is filed in the year 2018 and therefore is barred by limitation. This opposite party No.1 is the Government Organization therefore, this is not a consumer dispute. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
4. The version of the opposite party No.2 in brief: The complainant is not a consumer but he is beneficiary. The complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant has not shown proper and necessary parties. The complainant had not issued notice to the Commissioner U/s.685 of H.M.C. Act and hence the Honble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs. The Government had announced Rajeev Gruhakalpa PhaseII in Guntur city and invited applications from the public. The Government ordered this opposite party to receive the applications, to process and forward the applications to A.P. Housing Board, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, for allotments. This opposite party accordingly received the applications, processed the same and forwarded to A.P. Housing Board. This opposite party has done the post man duty. The receipt of e-Seva Kendram submitted by the applicant clearly reveals that he did not produce all the required documents Voter Identity Card. As per the endorsement on the receipt it should be produced within three months. The complainant has not filed any document to show that he complied with the said omissions. On receipt of notice from the complainant this opposite party made representation to the A.P.Housing Board for which a reply was given stating that they are not taking up A.P.Rajeev Swagruha under Guntur Municipal Corporation Limits since no land was allotted. At para No.3 of the representation that on arrival of demand, loan will be acquired, it will be attempt of Government to complete construction and deliver within a period of two years after land is acquired. The Government ordered to refund the E.M.D. to all the applicants who ever applied for it. This opposite party never received any representation from the complainant except the last representation dt.27.09.2017. After receipt of the same this opposite party had intimated the situation to the complainant. The Government had issued notification in the year 2007, and processed the application and allotted the house sites in the year 2008 itself. This opposite party has completed its duty and also published the details in the year 2008. The opposite party has been returning amount to the non beneficiaries whenever they have approached. The entire process was completed in the year 2008 itself.
5. Both parties filed their affidavits and written arguments. Exs.A1 to A25 and Exs.B1 & B2 are marked on behalf of the complainant and the opposite parties respectively. Heard both sides and gone through the pleadings and documents produced by the both parties.
6. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
3. Whether notice U/s.685 of H.M.C. Act to the Commissioner by the complainant is necessary?
4. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service? If so,
5. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
7. POINT No.1:- The payment made by the complainant towards application fee and processing fee under Ex.A1,2&3 dt.19.04.2007 e-seva receipts and cheque for Rs.5,000/-is consideration for service rendered by the opposite parties. Therefore the complainant is a consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection act.
8. POINT No.2:- The Government announcing Rajeev Gruhakalpa housing scheme in the year 2007 is an undisputed fact and as per the version of opposite party no:2 processing of applications was completed by 2008. The amount paid by the complainant Rs.5000/- towards processing fee, was lying with the opposite parties unanswered since the year 2007. Hence the cause of action is continuous. Therefore the complaint filed by the complainant is not barred by the limitation and it is maintainable in this Forum.
9. POINT No.3:- The opposite party no.2 having received letter Ex.A11 dt.27.09.2017 from the complainant, has send representation Ex.B1 to opposite party no.1requiring the status of the complainants application 23-06- 2018. The letter by complainant to the opposite party no.2 itself can be considered as notice to the Commissioner. Therefore non issuance of notice U/S 685 Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act is no bar to file a complaint in the Consumer Forum. The point is answered accordingly.
10. POINT NO.4:- Exs.A1 to A3 e-Seva receipts and cheque reveals that the complainant paid Rs.250/- and joined in the scheme as a member and have paid Rs.5,000/- towards the house in the opposite parties scheme. Exs.A4 & A5 the terms and conditions of Rajeev Swagruha (Rajeev Gruhakalpa Phase II) and Ex.A5 Tentative property plan show that a scheme to construct houses was introduced by the Government. The complainant claims that he was requesting the opposite parties to pursue his application since 2009, by producing the letters Ex.A6 dt.09.08.2009, Ex.A7 dt.05.07.2011, Ex.A8 dt.16.05.2013, Ex.A9 dt.25.04.2015, Ex.A10 dt.14.03.2016, Ex.A11 dt.27.09.2017 out of which only the letter Ex.A11 dt:27-09-2017 is being filed along with postal receipt. Therefore the emphasis of opposite party no.2 that it has not received any letter from the complainant except Ex.A11 dt.27-09-2017 is acceptable.
11. Even after receiving the representation Ex.A11 dt:27-09-2017 from the complainant the opposite party no.2 took up the matter to the opposite party no.1 nearly 10 months belatedly on 23-06-2018 by sending letter Ex.B1, that too after complainant filing the case in the Forum.
12. The opposite party no.1 Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board replied through Ex.B2 on 25.06.2018 saying that, as the Government of Andhra Pradesh has not allotted the land to take up Rajeev Swagruha Housing Scheme in Guntur Municipal Corporation Limits, the scheme is not taken up but the Rajeev Swagruha Corporation is issuing the E.M.D. refund amount of Rs.5,000/- to all the applicants and that the said amount was deposited in A.P. Rajeev Swagruha Corporation Accounts, that the complainant though eligible, has not applied for refund.
13. The opposite party no:1 quoted the relevant condition incorporated in Ex.A5 terms and conditions of the scheme that, on arrival of demand, land will be acquired, it will be the attempt of the Government to complete the construction and deliver within a period of two years after land is acquired. No doubt the said condition will have a bearing on the allotment or construction etc; of the applicants house, but it is incumbent on the opposite party no:1 as the corporation instituted / established for the purpose of implementing the housing project and on the opposite party no:2 which received the payments from the applicants to keep them informed time to time.
14. But either of the opposite parties afforded to inform the applicants or announce the stage of the scheme to the applicants. The opposite parties ought to have kept the complainant informed about status of the scheme and the EMD amount. Having paid Rs.5,000/- towards a house in Rajeev Gruhakalpa Housing Scheme expecting a house, the complainant was kept waiting from 2007 till 2018 ie; for eleven years, which is nothing but deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The contention of the opposite party no.2 showing laxity on complainants side, the submission of voter id card as endorsed on e-seva receipt Ex.A2, is of no importance because, it is not the case of the opposite parties that, since the voter id is not submitted it has not allotted the house. The opposite parties having received are responsible for the delay in intimating the complainant which is deficiency of service and are liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant must have suffered lot of mental agony having paid part of his hard earned money to the opposite parties. This point is accordingly answered.
15. POINT No.5:- The complainant by filing rental receipts Exs.A13 to A25 sought refund of rent he spent amounting to Rs.7,20,000/- and also sought Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. The complainant paid Rs.5,000/- only towards processing fee but not towards the consideration of the house to the opposite parties. The compensation sought by the complainant is so exorbitant in absence of any allotment given by the opposite parties. In these circumstances, it is proper to confine to refund of processing fee and application fee besides compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- will meet the ends of justice.
16. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:
1. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) paid by the complainant towards processing fee, to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty) paid by the complainant towards application fee, to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs), for mental agony, to the complainant.
4. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards costs of the complaint, to the complainant.
5. The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks, failing which the amounts in item No.1&2 shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization. Dictated to Jr. Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 25th day of April, 2019. Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS MARKED For Complainant: DATE DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS A1 19.04.2007 e-Seva Receipt for Rs.250/- towards application fee. A2 20.04.2007 e-Seva Receipt for Rs.5,000/- towards processing fee. A3 19.04.2007 Copy of cheque for Rs.5,000/- in favour of A.P.Housing Board, Hyderabad. A4 -- Copy of terms and conditions of Rajeev Swagruha (Rajeev Gruhakalpa Phase II). A5 -- Copy of Tentative prototype plans for multistoried flats. A6 09.08.2009 Copy of representation of complainant addressed to the Commissioner, GMC, Guntur. A7 05.07.2011 Copy of representation of complainant addressed to the Commissioner, GMC, Guntur. A8 16.05.2013 Copy of representation of complainant addressed to the Commissioner, GMC, Guntur. A9 25.04.2015 Copy of representation of complainant addressed to the Commissioner, GMC, Guntur. A10 14.03.2016 Copy of representation of complainant addressed to the Commissioner, GMC, Guntur. A11 27.09.2017 Copy of representation of complainant addressed to the Commissioner, GMC, Guntur. A12 27.09.2017 Postal receipt. A13 31.12.2007 Rent receipt for Rs.40,000/- A14 31.12.2008 Rent receipt for Rs.60,000/- A15 31.12.2009 Rent receipt for Rs.60,000/- A16 30.12.2010 Rent receipt for Rs.60,000/- A17 31.12.2011 Rent receipt for Rs.60,000/- A18 31.12.2012 Rent receipt for Rs.66,000/- A19 31.12.2013 Rent receipt for Rs.66,000/- A20 31.12.2014 Rent receipt for Rs.66,000/- A21 28.01.2015 Rent receipt for Rs.78,000/- A22 29.01.2016 Rent receipt for Rs.78,000/- A23 30.01.2017 Rent receipt for Rs.78,000/- A24 28.01.2018 Rent receipt for Rs.6,500/- A25 28.01.2018 Rent receipt for Rs.1,500/- For Opposite Parties: DATE DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS B1 23.06.2018 O/c. of letter from Commissioner, GMC, Guntur addressed to the Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board, Vijayawada. B2 25.06.2018 Letter addressed to the Commissioner, GMC, Guntur. Sd/-XXX PRESIDENT