STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 338 of 2014
AGAINST
CC No. 1107 of 2011, DISTRICT FORUM III, HYDERABAD
Between :
M/s. Suchir India Properties Pvt. Ltd
Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,
Y.Kiran Kumar, S/o Late Venkateshwarlu,
Regd office at 301, Lumbini Amrutha Chambers,
Nagarjuna circle, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad … Appellant/opposite party
And
Ch. Narayan Reddy,
S/o Late Ch. Laxma Reddy
Aged about 67 years, Occ : Business
R/o H.No. 2-10-1233, Jyothi nagar
Karimnagar .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Gopi Rajesh and Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri V. Appa Rao
FA 573 of 2014
AGAINST
CC No. 1107 of 2011, DISTRICT FORUM III, HYDERABAD
Between :
Ch. Narayan Reddy,
S/o Late Ch. Laxma Reddy
Aged about 67 years, Occ : Business
R/o H.No. 2-10-1233, Jyothi nagar
Karimnagar .. Appellant /complainant
And
M/s. Suchir India Properties Pvt. Ltd
Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,
Y.Kiran Kumar, S/o Late Venkateshwarlu,
Regd office at 301, Lumbini Amrutha Chambers,
Nagarjuna circle, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad … Respondent /opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V. Appa Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. Gopi Rajesh and Associates
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Thirty First Day of January
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) These are cross appeals filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party in FA 338 of 2014 and the complainant in FA 573 of 2014 praying this Commission to set aside and modify the impugned order dated 21.04.2014 made in CC 1107 of 2011 respectively on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM III, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a plot bearing No. 119 admeasuring 189 sq. yards or 158.02 sq. meters, Plot No. 119 in survey nos. 345/A, 348, 349, 351 /VU, 353, 359, 360, 361, 361/LU, 262, 363, 364/A, 365 situate at Muthangi village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District for a total consideration of Rs.9,26,100/- @ Rs.4,900/- per sq. yard through an agreement of sale dated 20.12.2008 to execute registered sale deed after making developments in the said property. Despite many requests made by him, without delivering possession of the plots, the opposite party vide letter dated 19.05.2010 informed him that plot no. 119 was under mortgage with HMDA and that the process of redemption with the said HMDA would be completed within three months, but, did not keep up the promise. Even after receipt of the legal notice dated 15.11.2011 issued by him, the opposite party neither paid refund of the amount of Rs.9,26,100/- with interest nor registered the sale deed in his favour which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party either to execute registered sale deed in respect of plot No. 119 or refund the amount of Rs.9,26,100/- with interest @ 24% pa, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards charges incurred by him and to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-.
4) The opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting the purchase of the above plots in Ranga Reddy District and receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs.9,26,100/- with regard to plot no. 119 from the complainant, contended that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it is barred by limitation and the as per clause no. 4(III), the vendor shall obtain necessary layout approval from the concerned authority. As per approved layout, the plot number was changed from 119 to 220 and the extent of the plot was also increased from 189 sq. yards to 240 sq. yards. They obtained approved layout in the year 2009 itself from the HMDA. In view of the fact, they requested the complainant to pay the difference amount for the extra land of 61 sq. yards or alternative plot for the same extent of plot of 189 sq. yards vide letters dated 08.04.2010 and 19.05.2010 and they are ready to execute any of the said two option but the complainant did not turn up and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-9 and the opposite parties filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B1 to B8. Both side parties filed their respective written arguments.
6). The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.9,26,100 along with compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- within one month, failing which, the opposite party shall pay interest @ 9% pa on Rs.9,26,100/- from 01.06.2014 till realization.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred appeal in FA 338 of 2014 and the complainant preferred appeal in FA 573 of 2014 before this Commission.
8). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No. 1 :
There is no dispute that the opposite party received entire sale consideration of Rs.9,26,100/- towards the purchase of the plot no. 119 in question vide Ex.A-1 agreement of sale dated 20.12.2008 in installments and the last installment was paid on 31.08.2008. There is also no dispute that despite letter dated 10.06.2010 vide Ex.A6 and legal notice dated 15.11.2011 vide Ex.A2 to register plot no. 119 or refund the amount with interest, the opposite party gave reply dated 08.04.201 vide Ex.A-7 stating that as per approved layout in the year 2009, the plot number was changed from 119 to 220 and the extent of the plot was also increased from 189 sq. yards to 240 sq. yards and they are ready to execute registered sale deed if the complainant is willing to pay the difference amount for the extra land of 61 sq. yards or alternative plot for the same extent of plot of 189 sq. yards vide letters dated 08.04.2010 and 19.05.2010.
11). The District Forum observed that the opposite party mentioned that the plot no. 119 was increased from 189 sq. yards to 240 sq. yards in the evidence affidavit, in the written version it has stated that that the plot no. 119 has been changed to plot no. 220 and its extent was 240 sq yards and plot no. 220 was sill under mortgage and in the memo filed along with sanctioned plan, the opposite party has come up with a plea that the plot no. 119 allotted to the complainant was changed to plot No. 294 and its extent was 189 sq. yards and Ex. B6 approved letter dated 07.10.2009 clearly indicate that plot nos. 89 to 239 of an extent of 51989.29 sq. yards was mortgaged to the HMDA and came to the conclusion that the opposite party taking the entire sale consideration about 4 years back, without developing the venture changed its stand from time to time and did not register the plot as allotted on some pretext or the other which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the District Forum has jurisdiction as per Section 3 of the C. P. Act to entertain the complaint and that the complaint is not barred by limitation since the opposite party is ready to execute the sale deed even today also if the complainant is wiling to pay the difference amount for the land extent of 61 sq. yards, the cause of action continues and there is no need to discuss with regard to the said two aspects except to accept the same.
12). Counsel for the appellant/opposite party company in FA 338 of 2014 argued that as per the agreement of sale clause no. 4(III) clearly states that the final plot number shall be allotted at the time of registration which shall be as per the approved layout sanctioned by the concerned authority and further the appellant/opposite party is always ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent/complainant in respect of plot bearing No. 220 admeasuring 240 sq. yards on payment of difference amount or the respondent/complainant has to choose alternative plot which is ready for registration by paying registration charges, i.e., 189 sq. yards and it has obtained approved layout in the year 2009 itself for the venture from the HMDA and prayed to set aside the impugned order.
13). On the other hand, counsel for the appellant/complainant in FA 573 of 2014 argued that the respondent/opposite party to develop the plot as promised and failed to register in favour of the appellant/complainant even after receipt of entire sale consideration on 31.08.2008 and he is entitled to interest from the date of payment, i.e, 31.08.2008, instead of 01.06.2014. There is no contra that the respondent/opposite party did not receive the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.9,26,100/- from the appellant/complainant by 31.08.2008. As per agreement of sale vide Ex.A-1, dated 20.12.2008, the VENDOR shall get necessary approvals from the concerned authorities by developing a residential layout by dividing the land into residential plots duly approved by the competent authority. Further, on completion of the scheme period the VENDOR shall get registered the respective plot of land, for both customers paid under installment scheme and outright scheme, in favour of VENDEE on payment of registration charges whatsoever fixed. It is further mentioned in the said agreement that the VENDOR hereby allot the said plot bearing Plot no. 119 in favour of the VENDEE s per the understanding that the allotment of plot is subject to Final layout approval and in case of any disruption of plot extents ( as per the approved layout), the VENDEE hereby agree for an exchange of plot from available vacancy. It is to be noted that the scheme period was 12 months vide Ex.A5 and hence the appellant/opposite party has to register the plot on completion of the scheme period and that the complainant paid the entire amount by 31.08.2008 and therefore as per the terms of the Ex.A1 sale agreement, the opposite party has to register the plot no. 119 immediately after 31.08.2008, but, they did not register the same on some pretext or the other which amounts to deficiency in service. They cannot escape from their liability on the pretext of approval of HMDA, though, as per the Ex.A1 agreement of sale, change of plot is agreeable after approval of HMDA, but, it did not materialize within the stipulated time which amounts to deficiency in service. Since the opposite party received the entire sale consideration of Rs.9,26,100/- from the complainant by 31.08.2008 and hence the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% pa from 01.09.2008 on the said amount. However, granting of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- is on higher side and hence we are inclined to reduce the same to Rs.50,000/-
14). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be modified while directing to refund the amount of Rs.9,26,100/- with interest @ 9% pa from 01.09.2008 till the date of realization, while reducing compensation from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.50,000/- while subsisting costs of Rs.2,000/- as it is.
15). Point No. 2 :
In the result, both the above two appeals, i.e. FA 338 of 2014 and FA 573 of 2014 are partly allowed and modified the impugned order dated 21.04.2014 made in CC 1107 of 2011 passed by the District Forum III, Hyderabad directing the appellant/opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.9,26,100/- with interest @ 9% pa from 01.09.2008 till the date of realization to the respondent/ complainant , while reducing compensation from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and subsisting costs of Rs.2,000/- as it is. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 31.01.2018.
