Consumer can no longer be taken for a ride

In a recent verdict, the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (APSCDRC) censured Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. for its unethical business practices.

The State commission commented that the company was harassing and causing loss to the consumer and its efforts to repudiate the agreement were unethical.

T. Vijaya Kumari, a resident of Indian Airlines Employees Colony, purchased a plot from the company in its East City extension in January 1998. She paid Rs.40,000 by the end of 2000 as per the initial agreement. She was asked to further pay an amount of Rs.43,750 towards development charges.

Accordingly she paid the charges by February, 2003. The company refused to register the plot on her name and it offered an alternative plot, which was not acceptable to the buyer.

Hence, the buyer asked for repayment of her amount. However, she could get only Rs.81,250 out of Rs.83,750.

She was told that Rs.2,500 was deducted towards outstanding dues, which never existed.

The company neither paid interest on the money for keeping it for three years nor compensation for going back on its promise.

The annoyed buyer filed a case at Hyderabad District Forum-III seeking for Rs.3,75,000, the then market rate of the plot, with 24 per cent interest rate per annum, Rs.2,500, which was deducted illegally and Rs.50,000 towards compensation besides court costs of Rs.10,000. The company didn’t oppose the case at the Forum.
Deficiency in service

All in all, the District Forum stated that not registering the plot after taking the entire sale consideration, amounts to deficiency in service.

However, the forum awarded only a compensation of Rs.50,000 besides costs of Rs.2,000. The company contended the verdict in the State Commission. It said that the compensation of Rs.50,000 was on the higher side and it argued that it was not liable to pay either interest or compensation since it proposed to register an alternative plot.

The commission pointed out, that the reasons put forth by the company for not registering the plot were inconsistent. It further stated that compensation of Rs.50,000 cannot be termed high, as the company locked up the consumer’s money for three years by which she has lost her plot at a time when land prices in the city escalated.

However, Ms. Vijaya Kumari was not granted the market rate as she couldn’t submit any proof to support her argument.