BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

 F.A.No.322/2013 against C.C.No.69/2012 District Forum, Ranga Reddy District.

Between:

M/s Sri Sidhartha Constructions (Represented

By its Managing Partner) Flat No.302, 3rd floor

Sai Dhamam Gardens, Taranagar,

Serilingampally-500 019, Ranga Reddy District, AP.

Sri P.Rakesh Kumar (Working Partner)

S/o.P.Shankar, R/o.Flat No.202,

Road No.1, Telephone Colony,

Kothapet, Hyderabad.

Sri A.P.Govind Kumar (Managing

Partner) S/oA.Pullaiah R/o.H.No.12-11-50

Boudhanagar, Ward No.12,

Warasiguda, Hyderabad.                                                                                      Appellants/Ops 1 to 3.

And

Human Rights and Consumer Protection Cell

BMRWS(Regd.) rep. by Thakur Rajkumar Sing

S/o.sri T.Deen Dayal Singh, aged about

40 years, General Secretary and Authorized

Representative of respondent/complainant No.2

R/o.BHEL MIG 982, Hyderabad-500 032.

G.Radha Krishna Reddy S/o.B.G.Lakshmi

Reddy, aged about 3 years, Occ:Software

Engineer R/o.Flat No.204, Block A,

Krishna Sai Apartments, Near WIDA Colony

Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh.

Sri Prabhakar Patel (Partner) S/o.Agamaiah Patel

H.No.8-1-106/A/1/108, chintal Krishna Street

Vinobanagar, shaikpet, Hyderbad-500 008.

Sri A.Srikanth S/o.A.Om Prakash (Also authorized

Representative of his NRI Brother (Partner)

Name Unknown) H.No.23-3-493/494, Near Moghulpura,

Sultan Shahi P.S. Hyderabad-500 005.                                                                              Respondents/

                                                                                                                                        Ops 4 & 5

Counsel for the  Appellants: M/s T.Sreenivas Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents:R1 and R4 served.

                                         M/s P.Nagaraj-R2

                                        Mr.Madhusudhan Rao-R3

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

THURSDAY, THE TWENTH FOURTH DAY OF APIRL,

TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

Oral Order (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalaKrishna Tamada, President)

***

        This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 1 to 3 against the order dated 21-1-2013 made in C.C.No.69/2012 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District whereby the complaint of the respondent No.2 herein i.e. complaint was allowed and the appellants/opposite parties were directed to complete the construction of flat No.G-3 in Sri Sidhartha     Towers as per the specifications shown  in the construction agreement dated 20-6-2008 and further directed the appellants to obtain permission from the concerned authorities, complete and handover the flat to the complainant within three months and also directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation.  The complaint against opposite parties 4 and 5 is dismissed.

        The brief facts are that the complainant booked flat No.G-3 in Sri Sai   Sidhartha Towers at Bachupally village of Ranga Reddy District and in that regard an agreement of sale was entered into between the parties on 11-6-2008 for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,44,383/- by obtaining a loan from ICICI Bank.  The said bank released an amount of Rs.9,24,000/- on 18-6-2008, Rs.1,26,000/- on 06-8-2008 and Rs.4,50,000/- on 29-9-2008 and the said amounts were directly transferred by the bank to the builder i.e. opposite party No.1. The Bank also transferred an amount of Rs.44,383/- towards Prudential Life Insurance Policy.   A sale deed was also executed by the first appellant/opposite party no.1 which clearly establish that the flat No.G-3 of Sai Siddharatha Towers was sold to the complainant.  As the said flat was not made ready though the time stipulated was over, the complainant approached the District Forum and filed the complaint.

        Notices sent to opposite parties 1 to 5 returned unserved and the District Forum set the appellants exparte and passed an order directing them to complete the entire construction of the said flat as per the specifications  within a period of three months. Further the appellants herein were directed to obtain necessary sanctions/permissions from the concerned authorities and complete the construction and handover the flat to the complainant within the above period of three months, in addition to the above direction, the appellants/opposite parties were further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation for the mental agony.

        The said order, as stated supra,  is under challenge before us.

        When this matter is taken up for hearing, the counsel for the appellants was called absent.  In fact from the docket orders, it is clear that on earlier occasions, the learned counsel for the appellants was called absent.  In those circumstances, we looked into the record.  The record reveals that it is an exparte order and it is clearly stated in the said order that the appellants/opposite parties were set exparte as the notices were returned unserved with a postal endorsement ‘no such person’.  We are unable to accept the postal endorsement for the reason that the address given in this appeal grounds is M/s Sri Sidharatha Constructions (represented by its Managing Partner) Plot No.302, third floor, Sai    Dhammam Gardens, Taranagar  Serilingamaplly-500 019, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh and the address mentioned in the said notice is to the very same address and the said postal endorsement appears to be incorrect.  Further, when a notice is returned unserved with an endorsement ‘no such person’, an obligation is cast upon the court/District Forum to direct the complainant to take out substitute service by publishing the said notice in some local newspapers.  It appears from the record that the District Forum has not made any attempt to get the said notice published in any newspapers and in those circumstances, we are of the view that the matter requires remand.  However, the same can be done only by imposing costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the appellants to the complainant.

        Accordingly this appeal is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to the complainant i.e.Mr.G.Radha Krishna Reddy.  The District Forum after ascertaining the fact that costs have been paid is directed to restore C.C.No.69/2012 to its file and give opportunity to the appellants to file their written version and chief affidavit and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law.  As this is an old CC of the year 2012, the District Forum is directed to dispose of the matter preferably within a period of 3 months.

                                                                                                                                        Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                                                                                                       Sd/-   MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                                                     Dt.24-4-2014.