BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD

 F.A.No.1228/2013 against C.C.No.130/2013, Dist.Forum, Ranga Reddy.

Between:

 
Mrs. D.Sita Kalyani,

W/o.D.Subrahmanyam, Plot-48, 

Balaji  Hills Colony,

 Street–4, Road -6, Swaroop Nagar,

Bodduppal, Hyderabad – 500 039.                             ….Appellant/

        Complainant

          And

Bharathi Real Estate Pvt.Ltd.,

Rep. by G.Jaipal Reddy  MD.,

S/o.Manga Reddy, G-3, 4

Sri Venkateswara Residency, Pirjadi Guda,

Beside Narayana College, Bodduppal,

Hyderabad, Pin:500 039.                                                     …  Respondent/

                                                                                       Opp.party               

Counsel for the Appellant        :    Dr. Mallikarjuna Reddy CH

Counsel for the respondent    :      M/s. P.Raja Sripathi Rao

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT,

SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER,

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA  RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE   TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND  FOURTEEN.

Oral Order: (Per  Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)           

                                                                      ***

 The  unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal against the order dt. 31.10.2013 of the District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy  made in C.C.No.130/2013 .

         The appellant filed  the said  Consumer Complaint   seeking direction  to  the respondent/opp.party   to pay (a) an amount of Rs.9 lakhsalong with  24% interest p.a.  with future interest  at the same rate   from the date of the agreement to the date of payment, b). to pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for mental agony and harassment caused due to the negligent  and indifferent attitude of the opp.party and c). to  paycosts of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.

        The brief case of the appellant/complainant , as set out in the complaint is as follows:       

 The complainant was approached by the opp.party  and offered  to sell  agricultural  land at 2.25 lakhs per acre,  in the venture being developed by the opp.party.   The opposite party has provided a brochure indicating the amenities being offered by it.   The complainant was made to buy four acres of land  from the opp.party.  The complainant  paid Rs.9 lakhs towards  full sale consideration  on 17.06.2009 for 4 acres of land  with layout of the said land, to the opposite party and the four acres of  land was registered in favour of the complainant on 19.06.2009,  under documents bearing nos.1553/9,1554/9,1555/9 and 1558/9  at Sub-Registrar’s office Cherial.     Later, the complainant  and the opp.party  entered into an agreement, known as Memorandum of Understanding dt.06.07.2009 for development of  Mango garden  in the four acres of land by theopp.party  with certain terms and conditions mentioned therein.    But  the opposite party has not developed  the  land, even after lapse of four years from the date of the agreement.   Therefore, the opposite party  caused  breach of the  conditions of the  said agreement.   Therefore,  thecomplainant is entitled to refund of the sale consideration of Rs.9 lakhs.   It is further stated that the complainant suffered from mental agony and harassment, due to negligent and indifferent attitude of the opp.party.   Therefore, the opp.parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs to the complainant.

         A notice was issued to the opposite party in the complaint and the same was returned with an endorsement “party left”. Thereupon,   a substitute service of notice on the opp.party  was ordered by way of publication. Publication was made, but the opp.party remained exparte.    

        During the course of enquiry,  in order to prove her case, the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. 

        Having heard the complainant’s counsel and perused the  evidence on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that  the complainant is not  entitled  to any relief  and dismissed the complaint. 

        Aggrieved by the said order,  the complainant preferred the above appeal urging that the District Forum  failed to appreciate the fact that though the land has been registered in the name of the appellant/complainant, till date, the said land  has not been identified and handed over to the appellant/complainant. That the  District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the  very purpose  behind buying the said land      is to develop Orchards,  which  was promised by the opp.party, under the agreement.   That the  District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that  but for the promises  made by the respondent/opp.pary, the appellant/complainant would not have invested in the said venture  and having made the appellant/complainant to invest her life savings  in the venture , respondent/opp.party  has failed to fulfil the promises made in the brochure or the agreement dt.06.07.2009. That the District Forum having concluded that no plantation has been developed as promised in the said land, by the respondent/opp.party, seriously erred in dismissing the complaint.   That the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the market value of the land sold to the appellant/complainant was far less than  what was paid by the complainant.     This fact goes to prove that the payment made by the appellant/complainant  is not only towards the land but also towards the development of the plantation.   The appellant/complainant  finallyprayed to set aside the   impugned order and to allow the complaint as prayed for.       

         We heard the  counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.

        Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?

        In the complaint  as well as in the evidence affidavit, the complainant  has categorically stated that she purchased four acres of land from  theopp.party  by paying total consideration of Rs.9 lakhs.   The said land was also duly registered on 19.06.2009 in her name, as mentioned in the complaint and also the legal notice , the copy of which is marked as Ex.A3. 

It is the case of the complainant  that  herself and opp.party entered into an agreement styled as  Memorandum of Understanding on 06.07.2009  under the original of  Ex.A6 for development of Orchards  in the land by the opp.party. But the opposite party  failed to develop any Orchards in  the land and failed to fulfil the conditions of Ex.A6 and hence  she is seeking direction to the opp.party to refund the sale consideration of Rs.9 lakhs.       

Since the complainant  herself  admitted that she purchased four acres of land from the  opp.party   for a total sale consideration of Rs.9lakhs,   under a registered document and  gave the land to the  opp.party  for development of Orchards thereon, under Ex.A6  agreement. As rightly observed by the District Forum, the complainant  has no basis to seek direction to  the opposite party, to refund Rs.9 lakhs that was collected by him as sale consideration.

        The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant   raised  several  new grounds in the grounds of appeal, but there is no evidence in proof of the same.     Even the complainant has not stated  the case  that  she urged under  the  grounds  of appeal in this appeal, either in the complaint or in her evidence affidavit.   The material   grounds of appeal are not substantiated by the appellant/complainant by placing any cogent evidence. Even Ex.A6 Agreement does not support the submissions made in the grounds of appeal.  

         For all the afore said facts and circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the District Forum. Hence the appeal fails.

        In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum.   There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                         PRESIDENT

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        MEMBER

PM*                                                                 Dt.23.05.2014