Complaint filed on: 31-03-2010<br /> Disposed on: 28-07-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.725/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 28th JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> Mrs. Priya Bhadra,<br /> R@ A, 103, Royal Towers,<br /> Plot No.3,54/A,<br /> Opposite Flex Industry,<br /> Sector 61, Noida, UP<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> <br /> 1. Happy Home Constructions Pvt Ltd,<br /> No.62, Minister Road,<br /> Secunderabad, Represented by its<br /> Chairman and Managing Director,<br /> Sri N.Manohar Reddy<br /> 2. Mr. N.Manohar Reddy,<br /> Chairman and Managing Director,<br /> Happy Home Constructions Pvt Ltd,<br /> No.62, Minister Road,<br /> Secunderabad<br /> 3. City Square Enterprises (P) Ltd,<br /> Corporate office, <br /> # 312, 3rd Floor, Royal Corner, <br /> KH Road, Bangalore-560 027<br /> Represented by its<br /> Chairman and Managing Director<br /> Sri N.Manohar Reddy <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties [hereinafter called as OPs for short) are that, the 1st OP through the 2nd OP introduced a scheme for sale of plot for consideration as per the scheme known as “NATURE”, Medchel at Secunderabad and another plot in green city, Bangalore. The complainant has clubbed his two transactions with the OP one for purchase of a plot at Hyderabad and another agreement with the OP to purchase another plot at Bangalore. As the complainant has not filed this complaint regarding the plot of Secunderabad we confine ourselves to the transaction for purchase of plot at Bangalore. Complainant has contended that he had agreed to purchase a plot at Bangalore for a total consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- payable in monthly installments and paid Rs.25,000/- as initial payment. An agreement was entered into with the OP for purchase of plot measuring 200 sq. yards on 3-4-2001 and he has been given pass book after receipt of initial advance of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant thereafter complied the necessary conditions of the agreement and obtained receipt for having made payments. But the Ops disregarding the agreement of sale dated 3-4-2001 has failed to execute the sale deed and hand over the ownership and possession of the plot inspite of several reminders and requests, the Ops have failed to honour the agreement. That she is given to understand that the 2nd OP is now working for the 3rd OP as its chairman and managing director and all correspondences are intended to send to 3rd OP. That the complainant on 14-5-2005 sent an E-mail to 3rd OP ramending on the agreement and also the payment made also sent a copy of that letter through mail and sent another letter on 14-5-2009. She was asked to execute a power of attorney in favour of one Mr.Babu an employee of the OP to enable them to workout the formalities. Accordingly, the complainant had executed a power of attorney in favours of that Babu, but the Ops have failed to take steps to act in accordance with the terms of the agreement despite issue of legal notice dated 10-10-2009 and therefore stating that cause of action to the complaint arose on 3-4-2001 and subsequently also when the correspondences were made as prayed for a direction to the Ops to execute a sale deed and to deliver possession of the plot at Green city Bangalore, to award of Rs.2,50,000/- towards mental agony and costs. <br /> <br /> 2. Considering the facts as narrated in the complaint, this forum had ordered for issue of notice to the 3rd OP only. The 3rd OP who is duly served with notice has remained absent, hence he is placed exparte and the complaint is taken for decision exparte. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed her affidavit evidence reproducing what she has stated in her complaint. She has produced a copy of layout sketch of the layout of Secunderabad, agreement of the sale dated 3-4-2001, copies of receipt for having paid the sital value and a copy of letter said to had been addressed to the 3rd OP and copy of legal notice dated 10-10-2009. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On considering the material facts as narrated above in brief and on going through the material placed before this forum two vital points crop up regarding maintainability of this complaint. Firstly is regarding territorial jurisdiction of this forum and secondly is about the limitation in filing this complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. Coming to the first point regarding territorial jurisdiction of this forum to decide the complaint is concerned we found that the complainant had entered into an agreement with Happy Home constructions Private Limited which is the 1st OP represented by its managing director namely N.Manohar Reddy who is also shown as the 2nd OP. Admittedly as on the date of transaction Ops No.1 and 2 were situated at Secunderabad in Andra Pradesh. The agreement of sale dated 3-4-2001 was also entered into at Secunderabad. All the payments relied upon by the complainant are also made at Secunderabad as admitted by the complainant none of these transaction took place in Bangalore except contending that the plot agreed to be sold is situated at Bangalore city. Therefore when entire transactions took place at Secunderabad and when the Ops No.1 and 2 with whom the complainant entered into an agreement of purchase of plot were resident of Secunderabad, the complaint could not have been presented before this forum. <br /> <br /> 6. The complainant knowing fully well that she did not entered into any part of transaction with city squares enterprises private limited that is the 3rd OP, but by narrating in para no.5 of the complaint, that the 2nd OP is now working as chairman and managing director of 3rd OP at Bangalore has filed this complaint before this forum. It is not disputed that the 1st OP Happy Home Constructions Private Limited is a different entity and the 2nd OP since said to be representing, OP No.3 notice was not issued against the Ops No.1 and 2. Sub-section (c) of Section 11 (1) of Consumer Protection Act though says that the complaint can be instituted in the district forum where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arise but in the case on hand except situation of the plot at Bangalore all the transactions since had taken place at Secunderabad part of cause of action can not be said to have arisen here. If the agreement had been entered into in Bangalore, or deliberation with regard to the purchase of plot if had taken place at Bangalore or payment had been made in Bangalore that incident could have been taken as part of cause of action within the limits of this forum. In the absence of such transaction it can not be said that part of cause of action has arisen in Bangalore. Hence, we hold that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. <br /> <br /> 7. Coming to the point of limitation is concerned it could be seen, the complainant has presented this complaint with the allegations against the 3rd OP in not fulfilling his obligation in executing the sale deed and delivery of possession of the plot in terms of agreement of sale dated 3-4-2001. The complainant in the complaint has stated that cause of action for the complaint first arose on 3-4-2001 and it continued further and at late as on 14-5-2005 when correspondence was made and on issue of legal notice. Admittedly the complaint is based on agreement of sale dated 3-4-2001. It is manifest that the complainant after entering into an agreement of sale for purchase of plot at Bangalore, thereafter did not peruse the matter and on the contrary left it alone to its fate. Even the receipts in proof of payment made or of the year 2003. Thereafter, it appears that the complainant did not take up the matter with the OP to transfer title of the proposed plot to him. The counsel for the complainant invited our attention to the copy of a letter alleged to had been addressed to the 3rd OP on 14-5-2005. But when we questioned him about copy of this letter not containing signature of the complainant and date of its origin is doubtful and is there any proof to show that it was delivered to the 3rd OP the counsel was not in a position to submit on these points and to convince us. Therefore, we do not find any proof to hold that the complainant had sent any letter to the 3rd OP in the year 2009. Further it could be seen that copy of this letter is a computer copy it do not bear the computered printing of month and year. Later on the date, month and year are written in the pen and that year 2009 appear to have been over written to make it appear as 2005 by overwriting 2009. Even then admittedly not proved to hand been delivered it to Ops. Then the learned counsel referred to a copy of the legal notice the complainant got issued to the Ops on 10-10-2009 it is a settled position of law that issue of subsequent letter or legal notice after expiry of limitation will not give any fresh cause of action. Therefore, it is clear from the facts of this case that limitation to file the complaint started from 3-4-2001 and continued till the payment had made upto march-2003 and thereafter started running. Thereafter after the year 2003 no correspondences took place between the complainant and Op and there being no acknowledgement of liability or admission by the Op, the complaint filed before this forum on 31-3-2010 is not maintainable and therefore is barred by limitation as provided under section 24A of the CP Act. Since the complainant have not filed any applications for condonation of delay. Thus the complaint is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on that ground also, with the result, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed on the ground that this forum lack territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint and the complaint is also barred by limitation. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />