BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.59/2014 against E.A.No.5/2013 in C.C.No.1020/2010 District Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
M/s.Padmaja Constructions,
Represented by its Proprietor
Sri K.Yedukondalu S/o.VenkataRatnam
Aged about 51 years, R/o.Flat No.501,
Sri Venkateswara Enclave,
Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent/
Opp.party.
- Smt.P.Annapurna (died)
Per her L.Rs.
- Sri P.Buchi Raju S/o.lateP.Veerappa
Aged about 40 years, Occ:Service.
- Sri P.Veeresham S/o.lateP.Veerappa
Aged about 35 years, Occ:Service.
- Sri P.Viswanath S/o.lteP.Veerappa
Aged about 26 years, Occ:Student.
(All are residing at H.N o.7-1-205/5,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad) Respondents/Petitioners/
Complainants.
Counsel for the Appellant:M/s K.Visweswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents:M/s.R.Pavan Reddy
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE EIGHTHDAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order ( PerHon’ble Sri Justice GopalakrishnaTamada, President.)
***
This appeal is filed U/s.27-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the docket orders dated 03-1-2014 and 30-1-2014 in E.A.No.5/2013 in C.C.No.1020/2010 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad.
The brief facts are that the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed in the following manner:
‘In the result, (1) The complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to deliver the flat admeasuring 1,250 sq. ft. in the 2nd floor and in case, if it is not possible for the opposite party to handover the flat in 2nd floor, it is directed to handover the flat in 3rd floor without demanding any amount from the complainants. (2) The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month from the month of December, 2009 till the flat in the 2nd or 3rd floor is delivered. (3) The complainants are entitled to costs of Rs.2,000/- from the opposite party’.
On an appeal, the matter was confirmed by this Commission as well as National Commission. As the said order was not implemented, the complainant filed E.A.No.05/2013 U/s.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking execution of the said order. The matter was adjourned on a number of occasions. On 03-4-2014, the District Forum was pleased to issue N.B.Ws. and pursuant thereto certain amounts were paid on different dates and the said N.B.Ws. were kept pending. On 03-1-2014 the doctor order was passed to the following effect:
Memo along with Bankers cheque bearing No.092622 dated 02-1-2014 for Rs.1,43,000/- filed. For delivery of flat, call on 30-1-2014’.
Again on 30-1-2014 another docket order was passed in the following manner:
‘Complainant present. Respondent is absent. Petition U/s.317 Cr.P.C. to condone the absence of the respondent is filed and the same is allowed. Call on 10-2-2014 finally as last chance.
The said orders dated 03-1-2014 and 30—1-2014 were questioned before this Commission by filing the present appeal and this Commission was pleased to grant interim stay initially for a period of three weeks by an order dated 07-2-2014 and subsequently it was extended until further orders on 28-2-2014 on account of the submission made by the appellant/opposite party that the order of the District Forum is complied with. Subsequently the matter was adjourned on a number of occasions.
Today when this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that though the amounts were paid, the possession of the flat as directed by the District Forum has not been handed over and in those circumstances, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The learned counsel for the appellant stated that it is not possible for them to execute the said decree for the reason that the flats in second and third floor are not available for the reason that they are already sold to third parties.
We are not concerned with the said submission. So long as the said order is in existence, the appellant/opposite party has to implement the said order and further it is for the District Forum to take a decision either way and we see no merits in this appeal.
Accordingly this appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.08-7-2014.