BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 31stday of October, 2008
C.C.No. 46/08
Between:
Y. Gopal Reddy,S/o. Y. Seshi Reddy,
H.No.87-468, Sree Nagar Colony, Kurnool.
… Complainant
Versus
G. Nagalakshmi Reddy, S/o. G . Nagi Reddy,
H.No.87-708, Kamala Nagar, Kurnool.
… Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. K. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.NO.46/08
1. This case of the complainant is field U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite party to refund sum of Rs.1,41,000/- with interest from 29-3-2005 or to register the plot in favour of complainant , Rs. 2 lakhs towards financial loss Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the case alleging the opposite party entering into agreement for sale of plot. No. 228 & 229 in Sy.No.161 of Kurnool in Siva Priya Nagar @ Rs.14,000/- for cent to the complainant on 29-3-2005 and receiving Rs.1,41,000/- towards the entire sale consideration agreeing to register the said
property on demand of the complainant and not registering the sale of said property inspite of several demand and legal notice dated 30-1-2008 and the said deficient conduct of the opposite party not only ensured mental agony but also financial loss due to increase in value of land and registration charges.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party caused his appearance and contested the case filling written version denying any liability as to complainants claim.
3. The written version of the opposite party besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case , even though admit the execution of agreement of sale in favour of complainant on 29-3-2005 for sale of Ac.10.10 cents land @ Rs.14,000/- per cent , allege registration of sale of said property at the instance of complainant by him in favour of Mr.Rama Chandra Reddy and Anjaneyulu inspite of his being in Government General Hospital, Kurnool undergoing treatment for paralysis and the consideration for the said sale was received by the complainant and this case is foisted by the complainant on account of existing disputes between himself and complainant as to lands of Sankar’s B.Ed College for which OS.No.413/2006 is pending before Senior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool and so there being any deficiency on his part seeks dismissal of the complaints case for want of proper cause of action and also being barred by limitation .
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in E.xA1 and A2 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of the complaint contentions , the opposite party has merely taken reliance upon its own sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant whether has made out any deficiencies of the opposite party making the latter liable for complainants claim.
6. The opposite party except alleging that the property covered in Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated 29-3-2005 was got registered by him by the complainant in favour of Mr. Rama Chandra Reddy and Anjaneyulu did neither furnished any details of said sale i.e., date of registration of said sale , amount of consideration paid there under by the said purchasers or any document of said sale nor the affidavit of said Rama Chandra Reddy and Anjaneyulu in support of his written version contentions . Hence the said contentions of the opposite party being not substantiated by any cogent material there appears any bonafidees and merit and force in the said defence of the opposite party to exonerate him from any of his accountability to the complainant under Ex.A1 .
7. When the agreement of sale in Ex.A1 dates to 29-3-2005 this case being filled by the complainant on 26-3-2008 i.e, more than two years after , it is contended by the opposite party that the case of the complainant is barred by limitation . The complaint and the sworn affidavit of the complainant avers that several oral requests and approaches were made to opposite party by the complainant requesting for registration of sale of the property concerned in ExA1 and lastly legal notice dated 30-1-2008 was caused and the opposite party did not respond it to even by any denial and so there is continuous cause of action to his case and relies upon the following decisions in that regard.
8. The Hon’ble Madhyapradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Bhopal in Gwalior Development Authority Vs Manju Naik and four others reported in II ( 1998) CPJ Pg.64 holds the case is not barred by limitation when the earnest amount for plot deposited and not allotted for several years and there being any refusal for such allotment the cause of action continuous to exist till filling of the complaint .
9. The Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at New Delhi, in Abdual Mazid and brother Vs. Omiga Shipping Private Limited and other reported in II (2008) CPJ 422 holds that the cause of action continues till the last communication between the parties and not from the date of booking or delivery of consignment
10. The Hon’ble Union Terrioritory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandighar in Haryana Urban Development Authority and another Vs. Dr.Pavan Kumar Gupta reported in I (2006) CPJ 261 holds complaint not time barred when position was not offered even after lapse of eight years and cause of action continuing and recurring till physical possession of plot actual delivered as the said conduct amounts to deficiency in service.
11. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Haryana Urban Development Authority and another Vs . Hari Ram reported in III (2008) CPJ 194 (NC) holds cause of action is continuous and complaint not barred by limitation in the circumstances stated in that case.
12. The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Bhopal in Alpana Agarwal Vs LIC of India and others reported in III (2007) CPJ 42 holds the genuine claim of consumer ought not to be defited on the technical ground of limitation when payment required to be made by Government owned company and directs the LIC to pay the amount with interest.
13. From the above cited decisions what remains clear is that the cause of action continuous till the last communication and filling the case when there is any denial for discharge of the liability and receiving entire consideration and in the circumstances of the silent conduct of the opposite party at the request of the complainant for registration of the property concerned in Ex.A1 and not even responding to the legal notice dated 30-1-2008 in Ex.A2 is providing a continuous cause of action to the case of the complainant and therefore the case of the complainant is not remaining barred by limitation .
14. As the Ex.A1 being remaining bonafide in the absence of any cogent proof of the opposite party side contention and there being any denial of the truth of the contentions and demand made to the opposite party as to the Ex.A1 property and as per the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Matiur Rehaman and others Vs.Jahanara Begum and another reported in III ( 2008) CPJ 164 NC housing activity being service ,contention of complaint is of civil nature and time barred under Specific Relief Act is rejected allowing the complaint and the cause of action as to the liability of the opposite party under Ex.A1 being continuous the complainant is remaining entitled for redressal of his grievances.
15. Consequently, the case of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party to register the sale of the property cover under Ex.A1 in favour of the complainant or to refund Rs.1,41,000/- ie., the amount received under Ex.A1 with interest at 12% p.a from the date of Ex.A1 and also to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the case having driven the complainant to the forum for redressal of the grievance by his indifferent and deficient conduct .Time granted to the opposite party for compliance the above order is one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default the supra stated award amount shall be payable by the opposite party to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 31st day of October, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
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. Agreement for sale of plot dated 29-03-2005.
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dated 30-01-2008 along with
acknowledgement.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
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 :
