BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD.

F.A.No.1013/2010 againstHYDERABAD.

Between:

Badam Chandraiah

S/o.B.Narasimha

Aged about 64 years,

Occ:Retd.Govt.Servant,

R/o.H.No.1-8-557/1, Prakurthi

Dew Drops Apartments, Flat No.103,

Chikkadpally, RTC X Roads,

Hyderabad, A.P.                   And

1. M/s.Happy Home Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

   RMKPlaza, 2^nd

2. M/s.Happy Home Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

   RoyalCornerBuilding, K.H.Road,

For the Appellant: Mr.Badam Chandraiah, Party in person

Counsel for the Respondents-R2-served.

QUORUM:  THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,.

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

Oral order:(Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)
***

The appellant, party in person, advanced his arguments. 

The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant. 

The case of the complainant in brief is that he took a house plot bearing No.70 admeasuring 500 sq. yds. in Sy.No.201/part in the venture “Nature City, Medhcal” floated by opposite parties by paying Rs.2,00,000/- which includes the development charges besides Rs.10,000/- towards registration fee.     

The respondents did not choose to contest the matter despite notice being served.

The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A1 to A8.

The District Forum after considering the evidence on record opined that the registered sale deed was executed on 09-2-2004 and the complaint was filed on 14-2-2009 and therefore barred by limitation and dismissed the complaint.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. 

The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law in that regard?

It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased plot No. 70 admeasuring 500 sq. yds. in Sy.No.201/part in the venture “Nature City, Medhcal” floated by opposite parties by paying Rs.2,00,000/- which includes the development charges besides Rs.10,000/- towards registration fee under registered sale deed, Ex.A5, dated 5-2-2004.    Despite the promise made by them that after execution of the sale deed, they would take up the development activity they did not do so.             

In the result the appeal is allowed and consequently the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is allowed directing the respondents/opposite parties to demarcate the plot sold to the complainant under Ex.A5 and develop the venture as promised by them in brochure, Ex.A1 by providing Black Top Roads, Electricity, Water Storage Tank, Drainage, Walkways, Drip Irrigation, Plantations, Swimming pool, Amphitheatre, Restaurant, Cottges, Children’s play area, Tennis court, Pool Table, Beach Volley ball, Obstacle Golf course within six months from the date of receipt of this order. 

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

Sd/-MEMBER.

JM