BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

 FA 1011 of 2013  against CC No. 354 of 2011, District Consumer Forum -1, Hyderabad.

Between:

K. Radhakrishna

s/o K. Premraj, aged 48 years,

occ ; Business, R/o 16-11-23/1/1,

Moosarambagh, Hyderabad.                                  ..        Appellant/complainant

And

1. Smt. M. Aruna,

W/o M. Prabhakar Reddy

Aged : 51 years, Occ : Housewife

R/o 1-9-296/1, Ashoka Apartments

Vidyanagar, Hyderabad

1. Sri P. Srikanth Reddy,

S/o P. Sarabha Reddy

Aged : 30 years, occ : Business

R/o 2-1-15/2,Nallakunta, Hyderabad ..                  Respondents/OPs

Counsel for the Appellant                             :        M/s. K. Ravi Sankar Babu.

Counsel for the Respondents              :        Mr. S. Sudarshan.

QUORUM:  

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT

AND

SRI  R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

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

1      The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He filed complaint stating that he purchased Flat No.202 in 2^nd floor of the building at Lalaguda Vilalge, Tarnaka, Secunderabad  through registered sale deed bearing document no. 1678 of 2009 for consideration of Rs.12,24,000/-. The appellant invested amount with the venture undertaken by the second respondent in the first respondent. Subsequently, the appellant had withdrawn from the business and the second respondent settled the account of the appellant. The terms of settlement  are reduced into Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.07.2009.

2      The appellant has submitted that he is entitled to parking space as per the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.07.2002.  The Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.07.2009 was executed in pursuance of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.10.2005 between the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2. As per sanction plan vide permit no.1184/TP/MCH/SD/B1/09 accorded by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the ground floor is meant for parking and no construction can be made in the ground floor. The appellant addressed letter dated 15.10.2009 requesting the respondents  to demolish the unauthorized construction and the second respondent issued reply on 16.11.2010. The appellant got issued notice dated 16.11.2010 for which there was no reply from the second respondent.

3      The second respondent resisted the claim on the premise that the appellant joined him as partner and invested certain amount  in the  business and as there was no partnership deed executed the appellant obtained the signature of the second respondent in the agreement of sale executed in the name of the appellant’s sister, Prasuna, in respect of Flat No.202 in the second floor of the building. The appellant was looking after the business activities like engaging labour contractors, purchasing construction material, receiving amounts from the flat purchasers etc.,

4      The second respondent further contended that the appellant misused the funds and posed problems whereby the first respondent, flat purchasers and the construction workers had not extended their co-operation which led to delay in the construction work and loss of profit to the second respondent. Contrary to his promise, the appellant got filed suit,O.S.no. 627 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of amounts against the second respondent  and he filed the complaint with a view to harass the second respondent and make wrongful gain.

5      The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the appellant failed to establish that the respondent had deviated from the sanctioned plan and  that the appellant  is entitled to car parking space as also that the appellant failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

6      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant  has filed appeal contending that he is entitled to car parking place as per provisions  the A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and ownership)Act, and that the District  Forum failed to consider  Ex A12, Ex. A-14 and violation  of rules and regulations of plan. The appellant has contended that the District Forum has not considered the submissions made by this Commission  in FA No. 296 of 2012 .

and thus prayed for setting aside the impugned order while allowing the complaint.

 7     The counsels for the   appellant and the respondents have filed written arguments.

8      The points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents?
2. To what relief?

9.     POINTNO1:        The appellant purchased Flat No.202 in the second floor of the building constructed by the second respondent over the land of the first respondent at Lalaguda Village, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. The appellant purchased the flat through registered sale deed bearing document number. 1678 of 2009 for consideration of Rs.12,24,000/-. It is not disputed that the appellant was the partner of the second respondent in the business carried by the second respondent and he invested certain amount for the purpose of the business.

10     The appellant contends that his role was limited to invest the amount and he did not participate in the business affairs whereas the respondent no.2 submits that appellant was an active partner and he supervised the construction work of the building whereof he misused the funds which created trouble leading to non-cooperation from the first respondent , flat purchasers and the construction workers had which led to delay in the construction work and loss of profit to the second respondent.

11     The appellant claims for car parking place in the ground floor.  The Memorandum of Understanding executed on 13.07.2009 provides for providing car parking area to the flat owners  in terms of clause 6 which reads as under:

“The car parking  would be allotted after the allocation of 3 Nos of Parking spaces to the owner i.e, Smt. M. Aruna.  The remaining parking spaces would be allocated as per the lottery system among the other flat purchasers”.

12     The appellant agreed to receive the parking area after allocation of 3 Nos. of car parking spaces to the first respondent and subject to draw of lots for the remaining the car parking spaces among the other flat purchasers.

13     The respondents contended that there is no mention of car parking place to the appellant in the sale deed and MOU dated 13.07.2009 and that he allotted 3 car parking places to the first respondent and the remaining available spaces to other flat owners. The District Forum held that the respondent no.2 conducted draw of lots. The pleading in paragraph 8 of the written version to the effect the second respondent allotted three car parking places to the first respondent and the remaining car parking places to the other flat owners is not denied by the appellant.

14     This Commission allowed the appeal, F.A.No. 296 of 2012 and remitted the matter to the District Forum.  After the matter was remitted back to the District Forum, the appellant has filed the  documents, ExA12 to A14.  The documents appear to have been filed to show that there was deviation from the sanction plan on the part of the respondent.  This Commission,  in F.A.No. 296 of 2012 held that the appellant being a partner of the second respondent, he cannot be heard to say that the second respondent deviated from the sanction plan. Thus, the documents filed after the matter was remanded, would not be of any assistance to the case of the appellant.

15     In the written arguments, the respondent no.2 has asserted the sale of the flat by the appellant to SrinathBabu through registered sale deed.  The respondents thus contended :

“The appellant is making false and    frivolous allegations without any basis or evidence filing cases.  The appellant is not entitled to seek such relief against respondent no. 1 &2.  There is no ground for passing any order of compensation or other relief. Now the appellant is no more the owner of the flat, he sold away the said flat to the Srinath Babu Korupolu, s/o Saibaba Korupolu through registered sale deed document no. 103/2014 dated 16.01.2014 the said purchaser was not brought on record, the appellant was continuing the litigation without any right over the property.  

16     A perusal of the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant would show there in no denial of the sale of the Flat by the appellant. The respondents have categorically stated the sale deed document number as 1678 of 2009.  As the appellant is divested of the title of the Flat, he is no more the owner of the Flat and as such he has locus standi to maintain  the complaint. The appellant has not impleaded the purchaser of the flat nor did he obtain permission of the District Forum or this Commission to sell the Flat during pendency of the case. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the District Forum.

17     POINT NO.2:   In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. The parties shall bear their own costs.

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        Dt. 04.07.2014