BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 10th day of January, 2006
CC. No.40/2005
Md.Mustaq Ahmed,S/o Md.Ghouse, 45 Years,Proprietor,
M/S Seema Asbestos-Cement Products, 16, River View Colony, Kurnool-518004.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.The Managing Director, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited,
Parishrama Bhavan, 6th Floor, 5-9-58/B, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad-500004.
2.The Zonal Manager, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited,
Industrial Estate, Kurnool-518003. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 06.01.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri.C.Joga Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri.G.Chalapathi Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties 1 and 2 and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
CC.No.40/2005
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction against the opposite parties to execute the conveyance in favour of the complainant and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that he is the proprietor of M/s Seema Asbestos-Cement Products Shed No.F.15, Industrial Estate, Kurnool. He purchased Shed No.F.15 and plot No.32 on outright sale basis from the opposite party i.e., Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited for Rs.62,000/- and paid 1/3rd cost as advance of Rs.20,668/- through its Receipt No.13507 dated 14-11-1975 and the balance of Rs.41,332/- was paid though receipt No.21856 dated 18-06-1976 by raising loan from the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Hyderabad, wherein the opposite party no.1 has permitted for mortgage of the property and loan be released. The Andhra Pradesh state Financial Corporation Limited had directly deposited Rs.41,332/- to the opposite party No.1 a for appropriation in his account towards the balance cost of the Shed No.F.15 and Plot No.32. He further submits that he was again asked to pay Rs.8,560/- stating that the balance said cost due to revision in estimates of Shed No.F.15 which he paid through receipt No.020367 dated 12-05-1999, even in-spite of making all the payments and the repeated requests, the opposite parties are not registering the said Shed and the plot in his favour of enjoy full rights on the property. The property is in possession of his since November, 1975. The said attitude of the opposite parties in not fulfilling the request of him to execute the conveyance in favour of him is a deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.
3. The opposite parties in pursuance of the notices served on them appearance through their counsel and filed written version and the sworn affidavit denying the merits and bonafidies in the complaint both in facts and law.
4. The opposite parties admit in their written version that the complainant has been carrying on business as the proprietor of M/S Seema Asbestos Cement Products, Kurnool. On his request the corporation initially allotted Shed No.F15 along with adjacent plot No.32 situated in the Self Employment Industrial Estate (SEIE), Kurnool in favour of the complainant for the Industrial propose on outright sale basis vide allotment order dated 17-10-1973 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The said Shed along with the plot was allotted for industrial purpose for setting up of an industry for manufacture of Asbestos Cement pipes. The total extent of the Shed and the adjacent plot is 1,600 Sq., Yards and possession of the shed and also the adjacent plot was handed over to the complainant on 01-03-1976. In compliance with conditions in the allotment orders dated 17-10-1973, the complainant executed an agreement with the corporation on 27-03-1976 and agreed to use and occupy the shed and also the plot subject to the conditions stipulated in the sale agreement dated 27-03-1976 (Ex.B1) as the complainant committed breach of the conditions of the said agreement dated 27-03-1976 and he failed to pay the balance cost of the property. Thus, the complainant committed breach of the conditions of the said sale agreement dated 27-03-1976 and he failed to pay the balance cost of the property within the stipulated time and he failed to set up the proposed industry in the premises and instead he has parted with the possession of the premises to a third party Viz, M/S Vinayaka Mining industries without obtaining prior written permission of the corporation. The complainant further failed to obtain building permission for construction of factory buildings in Plot No.32 which is adjacent to shed No.F15 and he has kept the plot vacant, idle and without any industrial use. The complainant also failed to pay the House Tax in respect of the premises in-spite of issuing demand notices to him. An amount of Rs.13,443-86Ps is due towards House Tax as on 31-03-2005. In fact the House Tax is payable under the statute even without waiting for issuing demand notices. The complainant has been utilizing and enjoying the facilities provided by the corporation in SEIE, Kurnool but failed to pay the House Tax till date. The corporation fixed the final cost of the property and communicated the same to the complainant with a request to pay the amount together with interest vide letter dated 29-06-1988 which the complainant failed to comply with. As such, the corporation issued show cause notices dated 30-01-1994, 16-05-1994 and 02-02-1998 and called upon the complainant to show cause as to why the allotment of the property should not be cancelled. The complainant received the notices but failed to comply the same. As such, the corporation finally was constrained to cancel the allotment of shed No.F15 and also plot No.32, SEIE, Kurnool vide letter dated 05-03-1998 and forfeited the amounts paid by him towards the use and occupation duly determining the agreement dated 27-03-1976 and called upon the complainant to surrender the possession of the shed and also the plot to the corporation. In response to the same, the complainant vide letter dated 23-03-1998 requested the corporation to grant time for payment of the dues, vide letter dated 25-03-1998, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,400/- towards the land cost dues and requested for waiver of interest payable by him. In response to the same, the corporation vide letter dated 30-03-1998 informed to the complainant that a sum of Rs.12,023/- towards dues of the cost of the property and a sum of Rs.48,419/- towards penalty for restoration of allotment was payable by him. He was further informed that only on payment of the above amounts the corporation would examine his request for restoration of allotment of the property in his favour. But he failed to comply with the same and has not paid the dues to the corporation so far and therefore, the cancellation orders dated 05-03-1998 remains in force and the allotment of the property was not restored by the corporation in his favour so far. Thus the complainant is deemed to be a trespasser over the public premises belonging to the corporation and he is liable to be evicted. Separate action was initiated against the complainant in the matter. The corporation allotted the property at Rs.56,800/- not for Rs.62,000/- as alleged by the complainant which he paid along with interest as per the conditions of the allotment and sale agreement. A part of the cost of the property i.e., Rs.41,332/- was paid by the APSFC on behalf of the complainant vide their letter dated 16-06-1976 to the corporation with a condition that interest dues payable by the complainant may be collected from him. It is submitted that the contention of the complainant that the property is under mortgage with the APSFC is not true and correct and not tenable in as much as the corporation did not execute sale deed in favour of the complainant for creation of any mortgage of the property under law. As such the allotment of shed No.F5 and plot No.32 was cancelled way back on 05-03-1976 which resulted finally in violated the conditions of contract dated 27-03-1976 which resulted finally in cancellation of allotment vide the said letter dated 05-03-1998 and the same is not restored so far and there is no contract much less subsisting legal contract between the corporation and the complainant with regard to the said property. The allotment of the property is not yet restored and therefore the complainant is not entitled to seek for execution of sale deed in respect of the property covered by the present CD. His allegations that the opposite parties failed to execute the sale deed and are causing lot of harassment to him due to the alleged deficiency of service is not true and correct and the same is hereby denied. Further it is submitted that there is no proper or adequate much-less legal cause of action for the complainant to file the present complaint. The complaint is barred by limitation and is not maintainable under law and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed in limin. The allotment was cancelled on 05-03-1998 and the complaint ought to have been failed within two years from thereof and therefore the present complaint is bad and is liable to be dismissed.
5. In substantiation of the case averments while the complainant side as relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, interrogatories of the complainant to the opposite parties and their answers, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its case, the opposite parties side as relied upon the documentary records in Ex.B1 to Ex.B7, interrogatories of the opposite parties to the complainant and his answers besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 and also filed written arguments by the opposite parties through their counsel as to their defense in this case.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service in the conduct of the opposite parties in not executing the conveyance in favour of the complainant as to enable himself to the reliefs claim.
7. The Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of the receipt dated 12-05-1999 issued by opposite party No.2 in favour of the complainants company i.e., M/S Seema Asbestos for Rs.8,560/- towards balance shed cost for the Shed No.F15 in ESIE, Kurnool the Ex.A2 is the Xerox copy of the letter dated 07-04-1976 addressed to the Managing Director, A.P. State Financial Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, by Development Office, of the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, referring the complainants application dated 07-04-1976, in which the opposite party No.1 has informed that the complainant has been allotted shed No.F15 and plot No.32 on outright sale basis and he has paid Rs.20,668/- being 1/3rd cost of the above shed and plot and he has to pay the balance amount of Rs.41,332/- within a period of six month with usual interest and further informed that the opposite party no.1 has no objection to mortgage the above shed and plot to the A.P.S.F.C., Limited, Hyderabad, to procure loan for his industry as the original agreement for sale executed by him in respect of the above said shed (No.F14) and plot (No.32) is in the possession of the opposite parties and no charge has been created by depositing the said original documents.
8. The Ex.B1 is the original agreement of sale dated 27-03-1976 between the complainant and the opposite parties. The Ex.B2 is the original letter of A.P.S.F.C., Limited, Hyderabad to A.P.I.I.C., Limited, Hyderabad (opposite party No.1) dated 16-06-1976 regarding the payment of balance amount of Rs.41,332/- through cheque No.291147 dated 16-16-1676 and informed to collect the interest from the complainant directly. The Ex.B3 is the original orders of cancellation dated 05-03-1998 sent by the opposite parties to the complainant regarding the allotment order dated 17-10-1973 and 30-10-1975 in respect of the above shed and plot. The Ex.B4 is the original letter dated 23-03-1998 of the complainant addressed to the opposite party no.1 requesting him to allow payment of difference amount finally in the month of May, 1998 and also requested to permit him to get the above shed and plot registered in his name in the month of May, 1998. The Ex.B5 is the original letter dated 25-03-1998 of the complainant addressed to the opposite party No.2 that he could pool up a sum of Rs.4,400/- with great difficulty and sending the same through cheque No.611608 dated 25-03-1998 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad towards the principal part of difference of shed cost and requested the opposite party no.2 to accept the said cheque and consider to grant waiver of the interest taking into consideration his many difficulties expressed in the above said letter. The Ex.B6 is the original letter dated 13-03-1998 of the opposite party no.2 addressed to the complainant and informed that the complainant has to pay Rs.7,623/- towards interest and Rs.48,419/- towards penalty to restore the allotment of the above shed and plot. Ex.B7 is the original certificate of posting issued by the Postal Department in regarding the posting of letter dated 13-03-1998 (Ex.B6) to the complainant. As seen from the above material filed by the complainant and the opposite parties in substantiation of their case, it is clear that the complainant failed to approach this Forum within two years from the date of cancellation orders dated 05-03-1998 (Ex.B3) therefore, the present complaint is grossly belated and time barred. Further the complainant failed to approach this Forum for condonation of the said delay to file the said case explaining any tangible reasons for consideration by this Forum. If they are any omissions and commissions in violation of the sale agreement (Ex.B1) between the complainant and the opposite parties, the complainant should have been approached the appropriate Court for the reliefs if any for which he is entitled.
9. Therefore, in conclusion of the above discussion as the case of the complainant is suffering for want of proper cause of action, the complainant cannot have any remedy he sought for form the opposite parties.
10. Consequently, there being no merits and force in the case of the complainant, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced in the Open Court this the 10th day of January, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Receipt No.020367 dated 12-05-1999 issued by A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Zonal Office, Kurnool.
Ex.A2 Letter from A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited addressed to Managing Director, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, dated 07-04-1976.
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Agreement for Industrial Estates.
Ex.B2 Original letter dated 16-06-1976 of A.P. State Financial Corporation to opposite party No.1.
Ex.B3 Original order of cancellation, dated 05-03-1998 of opposite party No.2 to complainant.
Ex.B4 Copy of letter dated 23-03-1998 of complainant to opposite party No.2.
Ex.B5 Copy of the letter dated 25-03-1998 of the complainant to opposite party No.2.
Ex.B6 Office copy of letter dated 30-03-1998 of opposite party No.2 to complainant.
Ex.B7 Certificate of posting dated 01-04-1998 by opposite party no.2 to complainant.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri.C.Joga Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
- Sri.G.Chalapathi Rao, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
