BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Thursday the 02nd day of September, 2010
C.C.No 156/09
Between:
R.Aravinda Kumar Reddy (Minor) Rep.by Natural Guardian Father, R.Ramalinga Reddy, S/o. R.Sivarami Reddy,
H.No.40/2, R/o.Peddakadubur village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool district-518 380.
…..Complainant
-Vs-
1. Bala Veeraiah, S/o. Ramaiah,
R/o. H.No.46/678-2, 2nd floor, Opp.Medical College, Bhdhwara Peta Now residing at Plot No.108, Maruthi town ship Gayathri Estate,Kurnool.
2. Kameswara Singh, S/o. Bhagavan Singh,
R/o. H.No.46/678-2, 2nd floor, Opp. Medical College, Bhudhawara Peta, Now residing at both are partners And Proprietors of Maruthi Town Ship, Plot No.108, Gayathri Estate, Kurnool-518 002.
…Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day in the presence of Sri. Y. Srinivasulu, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. D.Yella Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri. B.Naga Lakshmi Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No. 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No.156/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 & 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs
(a) to pass an order infavour of the complainant and against both the
Ops to register the plot of 3 cents or to pay complainant Rs.3,00,000/-
(b) to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony ,
( c) Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss accured due to non registration of plot.
(d) cost of the complaint ,
(d) for such other relief as the Hon’ble Forum may think fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
- The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The Ops are the partners of Maruthi Town Ship. They introduced a scheme for allotment of plots in their town ship. As per the scheme the customer has to pay 60 installments. After the payment of 60 installments the Ops have to register the plot of 3 cents in the name of the customer. The complainant joined as a member in Maruthi Town Ship under subscription No.2334. The scheme commenced in the year 2000 and ended in the year 2005. After completion of scheme the complainant approached the Ops for registration of plot. The Ops did not come forward to register the plot. Finally the complainant got issued a lawyers notice on 11-05-2009. The said notice was received by Ops but they did not respond. There is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. Ops 1 and 2 and one Dwaram Siva Rami Reddy are the partners of the firm and they started real estate business in the year 1996 under name and style Sri Shiridi Sai Estates. The Maruthi Town Ship is the one of the ventures of the said firm. OP.No.1 was acting as managing partner of the firm. The venture of Maruthi Town Ship was closed by the end of July, 2005. After completion of the scheme the Ops 1 and 2 have executed registered sale deeds infavour of the customers who paid 60 monthly installments @ 350/-. In the year December, 2007 OP.No.1 came out of firm due to disputes with OP.No.2 and other partner Siva Rami Reddy. After December 2007 OP.No.2 and Sivarami Reddy are responsible for registration of the plots infavour of the subscribers who have paid monthly 60 installments. There are no plots available in Maruthi Town Ship venture now. Due to the negligence on the part of the complainant he could not get the register sale deed of plot in Maruthi Venture Town Ship .The complaint is time bared and it is liable to be dismissed.
OP.No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. OP.No.2 is not the proprietor and not a partner in Maruthi Town Ship. The complainant did not approach OP.No.2 at any time. The complainant did not pay any amount to OP.No.2. OP.No.2 received a lawyers notice got issued by the complainant. After the receipt of said notice he expressed his opinion orally stating that he is not a partner and he is not a proprietor of Maruthi Town Ship. Hence OP.No.2 is not liable to register the plot in the name of the complainant. It is the managing partner who signed on the receipts. Hence the managing partner of the Maruthi Town Ship is only responsible to the complainant. The membership card does not clearly show as to who are the partners. As per the receipts the last payment was made on 12-01-2002. The complaint is filed on 10-09-2009. The complaint is not filed in the prescribed time and it is bared by limitation. The complaint is not maintainable .It is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 and A2 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the OP Ex.B1 to B5 are marked and sworn affidavit of Ops are filed.
5. Both parties filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of OP?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to any relief ?
- whether the complaint is bared by time
- To what relief?
7. Points No.1 & 3 :- It is the case of the complainant that she joined as a member in the venture of Maruthi Town Ship in the year 2000 and that he paid 60 monthly installments @ 350/-. The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated about the payment of 60 installments @ 350/-. He filed Ex.A1 pass book and Ex.A2 bunch of receipts issued by Sri Shiridi Sai Estates. Ex.A1 and A2 disclose that the complainant was allotted membership No. 2334 and that he paid 60 installments @ 350/. OP.No.1 in his written version no where denied about the membership of the complainant and payment of 60 installments @350/- by the complainant. Admittedly after the payment of the 60 installments the member of the scheme is entitled to have a registered sale deed from the partners of the Maruthi Town Ship, Kurnool.
8. It is admitted by OP.No.1 that he was the one of the partners of the firm and that OP.No.2 and one D.Siva Rami Reddy are the other partners. Op.No.2 denied that he is the partner of the firm. OP.No.1 filed Ex.B1 to B5 to show that OP.No.2 is also a partner of the Sri Shiridi Sai Estates which started Maruthi Town Ship in the year 2000. As seen from Ex.B2 to B5 register sale deeds it is very clear that both the Ops executed sale deeds infavour of the members of the venture of Maruthi Town Ship after the completion of the scheme OP.No.2 did not give any explanation as to why he executed the originals of Ex.B2 to B5 sale deeds along with OP.No.1 infavour of the members of venture of Maruthi Town Ship sponsored by Shiridi Sai Extates. The contention of the OP.No.2 that he is nothing to do with the venture of Maruthi Town Ship and that he is not liable to execute registered sale deed infavour of the members of the Maruthi Town Ship can not be accepted . Admittedly the scheme was started in the year 2000 and it ended in the year 2005. OP.No.1 in his written version also clearly admitted that the period of the scheme is 60 months and it was closed by July, 2005. The complainant got notice issued to the Ops on 11-05-2009. Except the affidavit evidence of the complainant ,there is no independent evidence on record to show that the complainant demanded the Ops to execute registered sale deed in her favour immediately after the completion of the scheme and that the Ops did not respond.
9. It is also the case of the complainant that the complaint is bared by time. Admittedly the scheme ended in the year 2005. The complaint is filed 10-09-2009. Sec. 24-A of C.P. Act provides that : (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission , the State Commission or the District Forum , as the case may be , records its reasons for condoning such delay.
There is no record to show that the complainant filed a petition to condone the delay in filing the complaint and that the delay was condone. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the complainant got issued notice dated 11-05-2009 and that the complaint is filed within two years from the date of the notice. Admittedly the Ops having received the notice got issued by the complainant did not give any reply. The cause of action for the complainant arose in the year 2005 when the scheme came to an end. It is clearly stated in the complaint that after the completion of the scheme the complainant approached for registration of plot that the Ops did not come forward to register the plot and that they did not respond. As per the allegations in the complainant the cause of action for filing the complaint has arisen in the year 2005. The period of limitation is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The legal notice issued by the complainant does not save the period of limitation in filing the complaint. The complaint is bared by time and the complainant is not entitled to any relief under the Act.
10. Point No.3: In the result the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case no costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 02nd day of September, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Pass Book of Maruthi Twon Ship, Kurnool, Membership NO.2334
Ex.A2. Bunch of receipts issued by OP’s.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Photo copy of agreement register Sale deed executed by OP NO 1&2 in favour of Damodar Rao, dt.27-06-2005
Ex.B2. Photo copy of Register Sale deed executed by OP NO 1&2 in favour of Vasalla Eranna, dt.27-06-2005.
Ex.B3. Photo copy of Register Sale deed executed by Po NO 1&2 in favour of Chandra Sekhar Rao, dt.27-06-2005.
Ex.B4. Photo copy of Register Sale deed executed by Po NO 1&2 in favour of M.Seshamma, dt.29-06-2005.
Ex.B5. Photo copy of Register Sale deed executed by Po NO 1&2 in favour of Mallikarjuna, dt.31-07-2006
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
