F.A.No.309  OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.588 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD 

Between:

Mr.M.Karthik Reddy S/o M.Devender Reddy
H.No.2-2-18/46, B-21, Mithila Enclave
204, D.D.Colony, Bagh Amberpet,
Hyderabad-013   rep. by his father and GPA
Holder Mr.M.Devender Reddy
S/o late M.Papi Reddy, Occ: Retd.Govt. College
Principal H.No.2-2-18/46, B-21, Mithila Enclave
204, DD Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Appellant/complainant

                        A N D

1.   M/s Pragati Green Meadows & Resorts Ltd.,
rep. by its Chairman G.Bala Koteshwar Rao
off: Dr.No.271/A, Road No.10 (opp.to Spicy
Venue Restaurant), Hyderabad-033

2.   G.Bala Koteshwar Rao, Chairman

3.   Smt G.V.Kumari W/o G.Balakoteshwar Rao
Finance Director

4.   Sri G.Ajay Chandra S/o G.Bala Koteshwar Rao
Joint Managing Director

All are R/o Pragati Green Meadows & Resorts Ltd.,
rep. by its Chairman G.Bala Koteshwar Rao
off: Dr.No.271/A, road No.10 (opp.to Spicy
Venue Restaurant), Hyderabad-033

                                                                                        Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant              M/s  K.Yadagiri Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent           M/s B.Siva Kesava Reddy

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                        &

                        SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

 THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIRST  DAY OF MARCH

                                   TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                        ***

1.             The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He filed the complaint seeking for return of the amount of `11,13,034 with interest  registration charges of `41,000/-, `1,00,000/- towards compensation and `10,000/- towards costs.

 2.           The first respondent-company, a developer floated a venture for sale of plots  under the name and style of ‘Pragathi Green Heights & Resorts Ltd”  at Medipally village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district.  The appellant’s father stated to have been influenced and induced by the representations of the agents of the respondent about the layout, future prospect, world class amenities and potentiality of the venture, applied for two plots, one plot in the name of the appellant and another plot in the name of the appellant’s sister, Akhila Reddy. The respondents allotted two plots, Plot no.753 in the name of the appellant and plot no.753 in the name of his sister each plot measuring 500 sq.yards . Cost of each plot  `9,25,000/- was agreed to be paid @`1,850/- in 30 months and the appellant’s father paid an amount of `5,78,500/- in respect of the appellant’s plot  no.752 and `5,76,000/- in respect of plot no753 .

3.             The appellant’s father came to know that there was no DTCP layout for the two plots and the respondents had not provided club house, underground drainage and compound wall to the venture.  The respondents had not developed the venture as promised and as shown in the brochure. The appellant’s father demanded the respondents to return the amount collected from him. The respondents convinced him that they would execute sale deed for one plot and after adjusting the amount from one plot towards the total cost of one plot , they would refund the balance amount of `2,29,500/- to the appellant’s father. The respondents executed registered sale deed in respect of plot bearing number 753 in favour of the appellant on 331.07.2008. The respondents collected `41,000/- from the appellant’s father towards registration charges.

4.             The respondents executed sale deed by showing the vendor’s name, M/s Pragati Bio Pharma Pvt Ltd represented by its director, the third respondent instead of showing the name of the first respondent. The respondents failed to locate and deliver possession of the plot. The respondents executed sale deed for a non-existing plot. The appellant’s father demanded the respondents to repay the amount paid by him and the respondents promised to pay the amount of `11,54,500/- in installments. As the respondents failed to repay the sum of `11,13,094/-, the appellant thorough his father filed the complaint.

5.             The respondents resisted the claim on the premise that the first respondent would procure lands, develop them into agricultural farmlands and sell them to prospective purchasers. The appellant’s father approached the agent of the respondents to purchase agricultural farm  lands and not plots. On request of the appellant’s father,  the plot allotted in the name of Karthika Reddy was transferred in the name of the appellant by collecting transfer charges. The appellant after verifying the documents and the land entered into agreement of sale.  The respondents had not stated in brochure that the venture was approved by DTCP. The venture, Pragati Green Heights was approved by Grampanchayat,Medipalli.

6.             The appellant paid 27 monthly installments an amount of `5,76,000/- and an amount of `5,78,500/- in the name of Magam Akhila Reddy, total amount of `11,54,000/- out of total sale consideration of `18,75,000/- for both farm land plots and still an amount of `7,20,500/- has to be paid by the appellant. The GPA holder of the appellant had not paid any excess amount.  The amount of `2,29,500/- was adjusted as `41,000/- towards registration charges, `1,47,094/- towards cancellation charges and travelling expenditure etc., and `41,406/- was refunded to the appellant on 6.12.2008. The appellant is not consumer as he entered into commercial transaction and the dispute requires extensive evidence which cannot be decided in summary proceedings.

7.             The venture is provided with fencing walls, roads, sump, drip irrigation, power supply and plantations etc. The amount paid by the appellant’s father was adjusted to one agricultural land A-753 treating it as a special case.  The sale deed was executed by the sister concern of the first respondent company and the transaction took place in presence and with the consent of the father of the appellant. The complaint is filed with malafide intention and to have wrongful gain. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.             The GPA holder of the appellant filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A14.  On behalf of the respondents, its director filed his affidavit and the documents, ExB1 to B7.  During pendency of the appeal , ExA15 to A19 and ExB1 to B11 had been marked.

9.             The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the appellant cannot be believed to say that without verifying the details pertaining to the plot, he purchased it from the respondents and that without cancellation of the sale deed, the appellant cannot seek for refund of the amount. The District Forum held that sister concern of the first respondent company executed in favour of the appellant and the dispute cannot be decided in summary proceedings.

10.            Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal contending that the respondents had not shown the plot to him and they had not carried out the development work such as roads, plantation, drip irrigation, electricity etc. as agreed and stated in the brochure and that the calculations made in the written version are improper. It is contended that though the respondents described the plots as agricultural farmlands, the plots are meant for residential purpose and no person can do agriculture in a plot consisting of 500 sq.yards and that for agricultural farm lands there is no necessity to obtain  approval of layout. It is contended that Grampanchayat is not competent to sanction lay out and DTCP is competent authority to grant layout. It is contended that the respondents adopted unfair trade practice and the appellant is ready to execute re-conveyance deed.

11.            The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the amount sought for?

12.            The venture “Pragati Green Heights” floated by the respondents at Medipalli village of Moinabad and the appellant’s father making applications for allotment of two plots as also the allotment of plot no.753 in the name of the appellant and the allotment of plot no.752 in the name of the appellant’s sister are the facts admitted by the parties and need no discussion.   It is not disputed that the appellant’s father opted for one plot in the name of the appellant and the amount paid towards part sale consideration of plot number 752 was adjusted towards balance sale consideration of the plot no.753 allotted to the appellant.

13.            The appellant claims that the respondents had not developed the venture and had not obtained approval of layout whereby the appellant’s father informed them that he would take legal action against them whereon the respondents negotiated with him which resulted in agreement for execution of sale deed in favour of  the appellant adjusting the amount paid towards part sale consideration of plot no.752 as balance sale consideration of plot no.753  whereas the respondents contend that the appellant’s father expressed his inability to pay balance sale consideration in respect of both the plots and requested the respondents to adjust the amount paid for one plot to the amount due of another plot and the respondents treated it as a special case, adjusted the amount as requested.

14.            The respondents issued passbooks in favour of the appellant and his sister. As seen from the pass books, the plot number 753 and 752 are allotted in favour of the appellant and his sister respectively and as per the terms of the pass book, the appellant and his sister are required to pay  sale consideration of `18,75,000/- for both plots.

15.            The respondents issued brochure which contains the details of the venture, amenities to be provided and tentative cost of the plot etc.  Salient features of the venture as described in the brochure are :

·         A/c and Non-A/c cottages, suites and rooms with attached open concept bathrooms

·         Club House amidst a natural setting

·         Library

·         Cyber Café

·         Trekking

·         Cozy Corners

·         Lover’s Nest

·         Swimming pool with a sprawling 2,500 sft deck area

·         Boating

·         Water Slides and Sports

·         Children Games

16.            The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the respondents had not declared at the time of receiving application from the appellant that the layout was approved. He has submitted that the Grampancahyat, Medi palli  approved the lay out and copies of challan and layout are filed as additional evidence in the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant obtained information from the Grampanchayat and the communication sent by the Grampanchayat that no layout was granted in favour of the first respondent is filed as additional evidence.

17.            The documents filed by the appellant and the respondents are contradictory in their nature and content.  The reply given by the Grampanchayat to the application of the appellant would show that no layout of the first respondent company was approved whereas the copy of resolution of the Grampanchayat indicates approval of layout. The documents not mentioned in the affidavits of the parties and those casting shadow of doubt on the rival claims cannot be considered unless they are referred to by the party in his affidavit filed as evidence. Besides the issue pertaining to the layout, the parties are at dispute on several other issues which cannot be considered at in the appeal.

18.            For the foregoing reasons, we are of view that the matter need be remitted back to the District Forum for fresh adjudication. The District Forum shall not be carried away by the observations made by this Commission.  It has to come to the conclusion independently, uninfluenced by any observations made by us in the order and decide all issues including the issue of jurisdiction.

19.            In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. The matter is remanded back to the District Forum. The District Forum is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 

                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                           Dt.21.03.2013

కె.ఎం.కె.*