Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/142/2014

Smt. Somayajula Sarada - Complainant(s)

Versus

Andhrapradesh State Housing BOard - Opp.Party(s)

Smt S Padmini

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                             Registration of the Complaint:05-05-2014

                                                                            Date of Order :24-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II:AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.N. RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

 

TUESDAY, 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

        CONSUMER CASE NO.142/2014

 

BETWEEN:

 

SMT.SOMAYAJULA SARADA W/O LATE SAMBA SIVA SASTRY

HINDU, AGED 45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.11-13,

HOUSE NO.MIG 1-90, P.M.PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-41.

 

                                                                                      …COMPLAINANT

A N D:

 

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING BOARD,

REP. BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

          …OPPOSITE PARTY

 

This case coming on 20-02-2015 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of SMT.S.PADMINI, Advocate for the Complainant and of SRI P.V.H.S.NAGESWARA RAO, Advocate for the Opposite Party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:

 

 

 

O  R  D  E  R

(As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant filed the present complaint against the OPs, directing them to Register the Plot No.7 in Block No.9 at Madhurawada in her favour as the rightful nominee of late Y.Seetharamasastry and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that her late Brother Seetharama Sastry, as Bachelor during his life time applied for LIG Plot to the OP, A.P. State Housing Board and he was allotted a Plot bearing No.7 in Block No.9 in LIG-II, at Madhurawada vide Agreement for Sale dated 6-4-2010 under self financing scheme and the sale consideration was initially Rs.6,00,000/- and subsequently the entire sale consideration was paid to OP  and after the sad demise of her husband and her bachelor brother was taken care of her who also died in a road accident and who nominated her as her nominee form dated 31-03-2010 and as per item no.8 of the agreement for sale, the flat shall be registered in favour of the nominee in case of death of the allottee before the registration.

3.       That after the death of her brother, she approached the OP personal and in writing to transfer the allotted flat in her name and even on submitting no objection from the concerned legal heirs, the OP refused to transfer in her name and demanded her to submit succession certificate from the competent court and later inspite of her demands, the OP failed to register the Plot in her name and hence the complaint.

4.       The case of OP denying the material averments of the complaint is that the Complainant is not a Consumer and the Complainant has not issued notice U/s 68 of APHB Act 1956. They admitted that Seetha Ramasastry has been allotted LIG Flat-II at Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam and executed agreement for sale on 6-4-2010 and submitted nomination form dated 31-03-2010 along with family members and further nominated his sister S.Sarada aged 45 years as the person to whom the said flat shall be transferred in the event of his death as the allottee has given nomination to his sister and about 4 years  lapse from the date of nomination of his death and in the absence of family member certificate, they requested to submit succession certificate from competent court who submitted a letter dated 3-02-2004 along with death certificate and no objection certificate and after examining all the aspects, they issued a letter on 4-3-2014 stating that the complainant requested for transfer of allotment and registration of flat in her favour on the strength of document submitted by her and there are no latches on their part in following the process of the complaint’s request after following due procedure only, they informed the complainant by way of letter dated 21-07-2014, requesting her to withdraw the cases and submit the letter of identity for taking further action to register the said flat in her favour. Accordingly, the complainant gave letter in the last week of March, 2014 and finally orders issued by their superior authority on 17-07-2004 in favour of the complaint. In the meanwhile, complainant filed the above case. For these reasons, there are no merits in the case of the complainant. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

5.       To prove the case on behalf of the complainant, she filed her affidavit and  got marked Exhibits A1 to A22,  on other hand, on behalf of the OP, they filed affidavit. No documents are marked.

6.       Exhibit A1 is the Letter of Allotment, dated 27-11-2009, Exhibit A2 is the Agreement for sale dated 29-03-2010, Exhibit A3 letter from OP dated 01-12-2011, Exhibit A4 is the Tripartite Agreement, Exhibit A5 is the Nomination Form dated 29-03-2011, Exhibit A6 is the Death Certificate dated 26-03-2013, Exhibit A7 is the letter from OP dated 10-07-2013, Exhibit A8 is the Proforma-II Certificate, Exhibit A9 is the NOC issued by the Union Bank of India, dated 01-02-2014, Exhibit A10 is the Receipt of 1^st Installment issued by the OP, dated 06-01-2010, Exhibit A11 is the Receipt of IInd Installment issued by the OP dated 07-05-2010, Exhibit A12 is the 3^rd Installment issued by the OP dated 11-10-2010, Exhibit A13 is the 4^th installment issued by the OP  dated 09-02-2011, Exhibit A14 is the 5^th Installment issued by the OP dated 02-08-2011, Exhibit A15 is the Mee Seva Receipt dated 18-09-2013, Exhibit A16 is the No objection by the complainant’s mother, dated 10-07-2013, Exhibit A17 is the No objection by the Complainant’s son, dated 10-07-2013, Exhibit A18 is the letter from OP to the complainant dated 04-03-14, Exhibit A19 is the letter from the complainant to OP dated 20-03-2014, Exhibit A20 is the Postal receipt dated 20-03-2014 and Exhibit A21 is the Posta Receipt dated 20-03-2014, Exhibit A22 is the Letter from the OP to the Complainant dated 21-07-2014.

7.       Both parties filed their written arguments.

8.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

9.       Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

10.     The first contention of the counsel for the OP is that the complainant is not a consumer within the purview of the CP Act and there is no privity of contract between the parties. Section 2(d)(2) reveals any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or in any out of the payment and includes in a beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails all the services for consideration paid or promised.

11.     The case on hand clearly and categorically goes to show the complainant is the nominee of the original allottee for an alleged flat from OP and paid a total sale consideration but in spite of requests, the OP has not registered the flat etc., on flimsy grounds etc.  All these indicates the complainant comes under the definition of a consumer. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the OP does not hold any water.

12.     The second contention of the OP is that as no notice was served under section 64 of the APHB Act 1956, as such, this complaint is not maintainable. Both the CP Act and APHB Act or unambiguity clear on that aspect a notice U/s 64 of APHB Act is mandatory when a suit is filed. Here, it is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. No statutory notice is required under the CP Act before filing a complaint and the CP Act is  a complete Act. The Law is very clear on the aspect of what is a suit and what is a complaint. Both are altogether different from each other. Therefore, the contention of raised by the learned counsel for OP has no legs to stand.

13.     The last contention of the OP is that after following due procedure contemplated under the Act, they issued orders on 17-07-2004 treated this case is a fit case for transfer of allotment subject to payment of letter of indemnity and withdrawal of court cases. It is evident as seen from record, in case of death in harness, the house or property shall be transferred in favour of the nominee nominated by the allottee in favour of their respective family members, the allottee is added to be to change the nominee during their life time. If the allottee dies without leaving a nominee or a Will there normal legal procedure should be followed as per GO Ms.No.67 dated 8-9-2001.

14.     Now coming to the facts of the case on hand,  it is an admitted fact that originally late Y.Seetharamasastry, who died in a road accident and thereafter,  he nominated the complainant herein  as a nominee and the complainant submitted the death certificate of her brother Seetharamasastry dated 28-03-2013 issued by Registrar of Birth and Deaths, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and the said Seetharamasastry had been allotted to one LIG Flat at Madhurawada Village  and executed an agreement of sale on 6-4-2010 and submitted the nomination form dated 31-03-2010 along with his family members wherein he mentioned the present complaint as his nominee.

14.     The complainant evidence goes to show that the complainant herein paid the enhanced difference amount i.e., the entire payment is made to OP, which is evident as seen from Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant. As per item No.8 of the agreement for sale, the flat shall be registered in favour of the nominee in case of the death of the allottee before registration in his or her name. The evidence further goes to show that the complainant on demand by the OP for no objection submitted the NOC but the OP refused to transfer the same in her name with further objection to submit succession certificate etc., The correspondence marked as Exhibits clearly goes to show inspite of the complainant taken steps, the OP has not properly responded to her request. Atlast the OP addressed Exhibit A22 letter dated 21-07-2004  to transfer the above mentioned flat in favour of the complainant subject to withdrawal of present C.C.

15.     Thus, it is clear not only as seen from the evidence of the complainant but also from the admissions made by the OP in their counter, they have no objection to register the flat no.7 in Block No.9 at Madhurawada in favour of the complainant as she is the rightful nominee of late Y.Seetharamasastry.  it is evident as seen from the evidence of complainant even if there are no latches on the part of the complainant on flimsy grounds OP has not come forward to register the plot; on the other hand, they are irritating the complainant to withdraw her from this case; all these acts of OP clearly indicates tat there is a clear deficiency of service on their part. Therefore, we are hereby direct the OP to register the Plot No.7 in Block No.9 at Madhurawada in favour of the complainant i.e., nominee of late Y.Seetharamasastry within a month.

16.     Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion is, whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of Complainant that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Parties and thereby experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is an un-disputed fact that the Opposite Party did not register the plot in favour of the complainant.   Naturally, that might have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   On the other hand, OP giving pressure on the complainant to withdraw the case which they have ought not to do. In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 1,00,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

17.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainants ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for registration of the plot or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Parties within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

18.     In the result, this complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite Party to register the Plot No.7 in Block No.9 at Madhurawada in favour of Complainant i.e., nominee of late Y.Seetharamasastry within a month, to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) to the Complainant. Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 24^th day of February, 2015.

 

  Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                      Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                       MALE MEMBER                       PRESIDENT        

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

 

Exhibits	Date	Description
A-1	27-11-2009	Original letter of Allotment
A-2	29-03-2010	Copy of Agreement for sale
A-3	01-12-2011	Copy of Letter from OP
A-4		Copy of Tripartite Agreement
A-5	29-03-2011	Copy of Nomination Form
A-6	26-03-2013	Original Death Certificate
A-7	10-07-2013	Copy of Letter from OP
A-8		Copy of Performa-II certificate
A-9	01-12-2014	Original NOC issued by the Union Bank
A-10	06-01-2010	Copy of Receipt of 1st installment issued by the OP
A-11	07-05-2010	Copy of Receipt of 1st installment issued by the OP
A-12	11-10-2010	Copy of Receipt of 1st installment issued by the OP
A-13	09-02-2011	Coy of Receipt of 1st installment issued by the OP
A-14	02-08-2011	Copy of Receipt of 1st installment issued by the OP
A-15	18-09-2013	Copy of Mee Seva Receipt
A-16	10-07-2013	Copy of No objection by the complainant’s mother
A-17	10-07-2013	Copy of No objection by the complainant’s son
A-18	04-03-2014	Copy of Letter from OP to the complainant
A-19	20-03-2014	Copy of Letter from OP to the complainant
A-20	20-03-2014	Original Postal Receipt
A-21	20-03-2014	Original Postal  Receipt
A-22	21-07-2014	Letter from the OP to the Complainant

 

For the Opposite Parties:-              -nil

  Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                      Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT