FA Nos 1033/2010 against CC.No.234  of  2009 on the file of

 the Ditrict Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad.

Between:

Chintala Venkata Suresh Kumar,

S/o. Ch. Chandra Rao,

Hindu, aged 36 years,

working as Jr.Stenographer, District Consumer Forum-I,

Visakhapatnam,

R/o. D.No.36-46-19, Ravindra Nagar,

Kancherapalem, Visakhapatnam-530008,

Represented by his father, Ch.Chandra Rao, S/o. Late Sanyasaih,

Hindu, aged 62 years, R/o.MIG-2431,

4^th Batch, BHEL,

Hyderabad-500032,                         Appellant/Complainant

AND

1. Sri.N.R.Giridhar Kumar, S/o.Sri Janardhan Rao, Hindu,

Age not known to this complainant,

The then Managing Director of M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd.,

R/o.Plot No.110, Phase-IV, Vanasthalipuram,

Hyderabad.

2. Mr.a.Prasad Rao, Managing Director,

M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd., Hindu,

Age not known to this complainant,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

3. M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd.,

     Represented by its Managing Director,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

4.    Mr.Dasharadh Rama Rao, Executive Director,

 M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd.,

 Hindu, Age not known to this complainant,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

     5. The Branch Manager/Manager,

M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

                                                Respondents/Opp.parties                         

Counsel for the Appellants            :           M/s. Ch. R. Vasantha Kumar &

                                                                        Chaitanyalatha

Counsel for the Respondents       :           M/s. B.A. Prakash Reddy

FA Nos 1034/2010 against CC.No.235  of  2009 on the file of

 the Ditrict Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad

Between:

Chintala Venkata Ramesh Kumar,

S/o. Ch. Chandra Rao,

Hindu, aged 36 years,

working as CSE – Electronic Payment

System Priority Payment,

HSBC, H-2, Hyderabad R/o. MIG-2431,

4^th Batch, BHEL,

Hyderabad-500032,

Represented by his father, Ch.Chandra Rao,

S/o. Late Sanyasaih, Hindu, aged 62 years

R/o. MIG-2431, 4^th Batch, BHEL, Hyderabad-500032

                                                            Appellant/Complainant

AND

1. Sri.N.R.Giridhar Kumar, S/o.Sri Janardhan Rao, Hindu,

Age not known to this complaint,

The then Managing Director of M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd.,

R/o.Plot No.110, Phase-IV, Vanasthalipuram,

Hyderabad.

2. Mr.a.Prasad Rao, Managing Director,

M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd., Hindu,

Age not known to this complaint,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

     3.  M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd., Hindu,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

4. Mr.Dasharadh Rama Rao, Executive Director,

Hindu,

Age not known to this complaint,

M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

     5. The Branch Manager/Manager,

M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

                                                            Respondents/Opp.parties                         

Counsel for the Appellants            :           M/s. Ch. R. Vasantha Kumar &

                                                                        Chaitanyalatha

Counsel for the Respondents       :           M/s. B.A. Prakash Reddy

FA Nos 1035/2010 against CC.No.236  of  2009 on the file of

 the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad

Between:

Chintala Venkata Satish Kumar,

S/o. Ch. Chandra Rao,

Hindu, aged 34 years,

working as Asst.Vice President.

M/s.Genpact, Gurgaon,

R/o. Flat No.805, Vidya Enclave, 8^th Floor, Plot No.11,

Sector -56, Gurgaon-122 002

Represented by his father, Ch.Chandra Rao,

S/o. Late Sanyasaih, Hindu,

Aged 62 years, R/o. MIG-2431,

4^th Batch, BHEL,

Hyderabad-500032,   … Appellant /         Complainant

AND

1. Sri.N.R.Giridhar Kumar, S/o.Sri Janardhan Rao, Hindu,

Age not known to this complainant,

The then Managing Director of M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd.,

R/o.Plot No.110, Phase-IV, Vanasthalipuram,

Hyderabad.

2. Mr.a.Prasad Rao, Managing Director,

M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd., Hindu,

Age not known to this complainant,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

 3. M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd.,

     Represented by its Managing Director,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

4.  Mr.Dasharadh Rama Rao, Executive Director,

 M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd.,

 Hindu, Age not known to this complainant,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

     5. The Branch Manager/Manager,

M/s Sreemitra Estates Pvt.Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, RMK Plaza, Road No.1&12, X Road,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.         

                                                            Respondents/Opp.parties                         

Counsel for the Appellants            :           M/s. Ch. R. Vasantha Kumar &

                                                                        Chaitanyalatha

Counsel for the Respondents       :           M/s. B.A. Prakash Reddy

Coram                                                     ;     

                              Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao…      Hon’ble Member

And

                                  Sri T. Ashok Kumar        ..         Hon’ble Member

            Tuesday, the Twenty First Day of February

Thousand Twelve

          Oral Order        :   ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )

                                                                        *****

COMMON ORDER

1)                     These appeals are preferred by the unsuccessful complainants described above as  against the orders dated 10.08.2010 of the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad, where under, the complainants were dismissed.

2)                       Since  these appeals  are preferred against the very same  opposite parties , and as  common questions of fact and law are involved,  we are of the opinion that all these appeals  can be disposed of by a common order. It is much more so when all the complainants are also own brothers. For convenience sake, parties as arrayed in the complaints are referred to hereunder :

3. The complainants who are the sons of Sri Chandra Rao  and residents of Hyderabad  have booked house site plots in Greater Mount Vegas, Batesingaram, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District  for purchase with OPs and registered sale deeds were executed in their favour on  the dates described below after payment of entire sale consideration, development charges, registration charges  and other incidental charges and the case wise details such extent of the land, plots numbers, date of execution of registered sale etc. are shown in a tabular form hereunder :

Despite number of requests made by the complainants aforesaid OPs did not deliver possession of the respective plots to the complainants on one pretext or the other and it was informed by the OPs to the complainants that they would deliver the plots after blasting the stones and completion of development but did not do so. Therefore the complainants got issued legal notices to the OPs requesting them to deliver physical possession of the plots and in spite of the notices OPs kept quite and thus subjected the complainants to mental agony and financial loss and it amounts to deficiency  in service/. Hence the complaints  to direct the opposite parties to deliver vacant possession of the respective plots to the complainants and also to awarded compensation and costs.

4.             OPs filed counter in all the above matters denying the allegations made in the complaints and disputing the claims of the complaints. However, the OPs admitted that they executed registered sale deeds in favour of the complainants regarding their respective plots as described in the complaints. It is contended by the OP. 5 that they  floated Greater Mount Vegas and allotted the plots to the complainants as described supra with measurements and that after receipt of total cost of the land, development charges etc executed registered sale deeds in favour of the complainants in respect of their plots/plot and that also delivered peaceful   vacant possession of the same to the complainants on the date( s) of registration of the sale deed and that also handed over  the link documents to them. OPs did not receive any notice as contended by the complainants and even otherwise from the date of alleged notice till the complaint is filed they kept quite and thus the claim is barred by time. It is further contended that the complainants filed IAs NOs. 164/2009, etc. in the main cases seeking Interim order for a direction to the Ops not to register/alienate the plots covered by the sale deeds in favour of the third parties pending disposal of the main complaints and the complainants filed their respective affidavits in the complaints mentioning  as follows :

 “ I submit that I reliably learnt that the Ops are trying to register the sites in favour of the third parties for receiving higher consideration,. Over riding the existing registered sale deed in order to put me in multiple litigation. I submit that I have got prima facie case to have the registered site in my peaceful and physical possession and enjoyment as I have paid the entire sale consideration and it is registered in my favour first. I will be subjected to irreparable loss and suffering if the OPs registered the sites in favour of third parties. “

The complainants have filed the complaints only to harass the Ops and that they are not  maintainable as the reliefs asked in the complaints is in the nature of civil dispute and thus prayed to dismiss the complaints with costs.

5.            Considering the evidence affidavits of the parties to  the proceedings and the documents marked by them in the above complaints, the District Forum dismissed the said complaints holding that they are barred by time and that the reliefs sought for in the complaints is in the nature of civil dispute.

6.            Aggrieved by the said orders, the unsuccessful complainants   preferred the above appeals on several grounds and mainly contended  that the finding of the District Forum on the limitation point and also that the dispute is of civil nature are contrary to the law and facts and that they are not sustainable and that the District Forum did not consider  that as long as the development of the layout was undertaken there was no possibility of delivery of possession of the plot and that mere recital in the sale deed as to delivery of physical possession is not sufficient to hold that possession was delivered  and that the Forum did not  choose to mark the photographs to prove that the lay out is undeveloped and thus prayed to allow the appeals setting aside the impugned orders.

7.            Now the point for consideration is, whether the orders of the District Forum are sustainable ?

8.            There is no dispute that the complainants booked the plots referred to supra with OPs and that paid the entire sale consideration, development charges, registration charges and other incidental charges and also that the  sale deeds were executed and registered in favour of the complainants in respect of their plots on the dates referred to above. Perusal of the sale deeds marked in different exhibits in A- series in the said complaints disclose that  ´the Vendees have  delivered the peaceful vacant possession of the schedule property to the purchaser  herein for better enjoyment “ . The said recital reveals that the vendees  delivered vacant possession of the respective plots in favour of the purchaser/ complainant to enjoy the same peacefully.  The order under appeal discloses that the complainants filed                   IA 164/2009 etc. in the concerned complaints  and pleaded on oath in the affidavits annexed to the said IAs that ““ I submit that I reliably learnt that the Ops are trying to register the sites in favour of the third parties for receiving higher consideration over riding the existing registered sale deed in order to put me in multiple litigation. I submit that I have got prima facie case to have the registered site in my peaceful and physical possession and enjoyment as I have paid the entire sale consideration and it is registered in my favour first. I will be subjected to irreparable loss and suffering if the OPs registered the sites in favour of third parties. “

9.         The said admission is a self harming admission made by the complainants because the said aspects averred in the affidavit discloses that the complainants were in  peaceful possession of their respective plots. Thereafter the complainants also filed IA 212/2009 .etc in their respective complaints seeking to register alternative plots for the same extent available at  the entrance of the venture at the cost of the Ops and they were  contested by the Ops by filing counter. The said petitions were dismissed vide orders dt. 8.9.2009 holding that in case the proposed amendment sought for is allowed the nature of the complaint will be changed and as against the said orders RP nos. 65/2009  etc were filed before this Commission and the same were dismissed confirming the orders passed by the Forum in the said IAs and thereafter the complainants filed IAs 13/2010 .. etc in their respective complaints seeking amendment of the complaints in another form than asked in earlier petition and such IAs were also dismissed.  Had the complainants were not inducted into the possession of their respective plots after execution and registration of sale deeds in their favour immediately they would have issued a notice to the OPs stating  that though the document contains recitals about delivery of possession actually no such possession of the plots was delivered to them and thus it is believed by  the conduct of silence on the part of the complainants that possession of plots were delivered to them. They slept over their rights for considerable time and after lapse of two years limitation they designed notice dt. 09.12.2008 and sent the same through registered post. The postal receipts and correspondence made with postal department with regard to non receipt postal acknowledgements and the reply from postal department confirming the acknowledgement proves that such a notice was received by the opposite parties.    Thus it is believed that the Ops received notices from the complainants but certainly they were beyond two years from the date of registration of the sale deed. When delivery of possession of the plots is  believed the contention of the complainants  that since no delivery of possession of the plots had taken place the cause of action is continuous and recurring and that for the said reason the complaints were within time could not be appreciated.   Such notices would not extend the limitation to have continuous cause of action. Admittedly no  petition is filed to condone the delay in filing the complaint. Therefore the complaints filed on  5.3.2009.etc  are certainly barred by time.  For the said reason and also for the reason  that the possession of the plots were delivered to the complainants on the date of registration of the sale deeds, the complaints are not maintainable.  The District forum dismissed the complaints discussing all the aspects correctly.  Absolutely there are no reasons to interfere with the findings of the District Forum in any manner. The Complainants did not take steps to get the alleged photographs marked in the Appellate court as additional evidence.  Even otherwise when there is  a clear cut recital in the sale deed about the delivery of possession coupled with self harming admission of the complainants  that there are in possession of the plots, the said photographs,  if any,  are not helpful for the complainants to say that the possession of the plots were not delivered to them. It is much more so where  there is nothing to show that the photographs pertain to the concerned site and that they were taken on such and such dates.  As rightly observed by the District Forum the points urged by the complainants with regard to delivery of possession requires detailed evidence and it is therefore not desirable to decide the point on affidavit enquiry in the Consumer Forum where summary procedure is contemplated and therefore it would be just and reasonable for the complainants to agitate the same by producing oral and documentary evidence in full pledged trial in a Civil court but not before Consumer Forum.  In such circumstances, the decision referred to in the complaint i.e., 2005 (2) CPR (1) NC  on the point of limitation  and the decisions described in written arguments submitted  in the District Forum are not useful for them and it is much more so when the facts on case on hand are different from the facts of the decided cases.

In view of the above discussion, the above appeals are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. However, the complainants are at liberty to approach Civil Court for redressal if they so choose. In such an event they are entitled to claim benefit Under Section14 of Indian Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a Civil Suit.

11.       In the result, the Appeals in FA 1033/2010, FA 1034/2010 and FA 1035/2010  are dismissed confirming the orders of the District Forum in the respective complaints   but without costs. However, the complainants can claim the benefit of Section. 14 of Indian Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a Civil Suit.

                                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                                DT : 21.02.2012.