Col.Narne Ranga Rao , S/o. Sri N.V.Naidu, V/S Bhamidipati Venkat , S/o.Gr.Capt. B.U.B.Murthy (Retd)., - Consumer Court Case

Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

EA/35/09

Bhamidipati Venkat , S/o.Gr.Capt. B.U.B.Murthy (Retd)., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Col.Narne Ranga Rao , S/o. Sri N.V.Naidu, - Opp.Party(s)

Srinivas Karra

31 Aug 2010

ORDER

Execution Application No. EA/35/09

1. Bhamidipati Venkat , S/o.Gr.Capt. B.U.B.Murthy (Retd).,

R/o.106, Regency Zeenath Apartments, Punjagutta, Hyderabad rep. by his GPA Gr.Capt. B.U.B.Murthy

BEFORE:

PRESENT:

ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

E.A. 35/2009 in C.C. 1/2008

Between:

Bhamidipati Venkat

S/o. Gr. Capt. B.U.B. Murthy (Retd)

R/o. 106, Regency Zeenath Apartments

Punjagutta, Hyderabad.

Rep. by his GPA

Gr. Capt. B.U.B. Murthy (Retd) *** DHr/Complainant

And

Col. Narne Ranga Rao

S/o. N. V. Naidu

Chairman & Managing Director

M/s. Narne Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Office : 10, Gunrock Enclave

Secunderabad-500 009. *** JDR/Opposite Party

Counsel for the DHr/Complainant: M/s. Srinivas Karra

Counsel for the JDr/Respondent: M/s. D. Venkat Reddy

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1) The complainant filed this application u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act to punish the respondent on the ground that he did not execute registered sale deed as ordered by this Commission besides payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

2) He averred in the complaint that this Commission on his complaint, directed the respondent to execute the registered sale deed in his favour, besides payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-, and that he (the complainant) shall bear the stamp duty and balance registration as per law. He had obtained details of the valuation of the land and also the total amount of stamp duty and registration charges payable to the plot with the registration department and he was informed that an amount of Rs. 3,70,500/- is liable to be paid. Since the respondent had already collected Rs. 75,000/-, he be directed to refund the same or the complainant be directed to pay balance of Rs. 2,95,500/-. An amount of Rs. 75,000/- was collected towards registration charges was liable to be returned to him on execution of the sale deed by the respondent.

3) When questioned the respondent stated that he had already executed the sale deed. He sent a banker’s cheque for Rs. 10,000/- towards costs and therefore he complied the said orders. When questioned in regard to payment of balance of amount which he had collected from the complainant towards registration charges he stated that it was adjusted towards dues and pleaded not guilty.

4) The respondent could not state as to the head under which the said amount was adjusted. It was a fleeting statement. In fact this Commission, in the order pertaining to the amount collected towards development charges as well as registration charges along with sale consideration, it was opined that:

“At no time the opposite party has given any break up figure as to how he could claim particular development charges. Unless the amounts collected towards development charges is known, it is not prudent on his part to collect development charges from the complainants without mentioning as to how he was assessing the amounts towards development charges. Whenever, he collects the development charges, it is incumbent on his part to spell out the developments that were made by him and the amounts spent from out of the amounts collected from the complainants. Despite the fact that the complainants had paid the development charges, equally so with the registration charges evidenced under Ex. A6, by virtue of Section 55(5)(d) of the Transfer of Property Act buyer is bound to pay registration charges, stamp duty etc. It is curious to note the opposite party has been collecting registration charges against the said provision and making money out of it. He will have the advantage of the amount with him through out. This is also contrary to the provisions in the contract itself. We may mention here in the very same agreement Ex. A3 there is a clause stipulating payment of registration charges by the purchaser himself. Contrary to the above said stipulation and law, he has been collecting the registration charges and appropriating the same. Now, he intends to return the consideration having had the benefit of registration as well as development charges. This clearly smacks of unfair trade practice. The complainants having paid the development charges and registration charges as long back as in 1993, even if reasonable interest as per bank rate is calculated the opposite party had the advantage of it which under law it is not entitled to collect and retain for its profit.”

5) The respondent did not prefer any appeal against the order. He executed register sale deed and paid the costs as directed by this Commission. The complainant has borne out the entire stamp duty and registration charges. In the light of above observation, the respondent is liable to refund the amount collected towards registration charges. We reiterate that no evidence whatsoever was let in to show that under what account it was adjusted. Necessarily the order has become final and no appeal has been preferred by the respondent, we direct the respondent to refund the said amount which he had collected towards registration charges. Therefore the respondent cannot be held complied with said order, without refund of the amount. Therefore it constitutes non-compliance of orders u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.