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

 F.A.No.235/2014 against C.C.No.194/2012 District Forum, Ranga Reddy District.

Between:

Kashtajeevula Sangatana

Regd.No.9016/1999

Represented by its President

Mr.T.Krishna S/o.late T.Pochaiah

Aged about 44 years,

Occ:Social worker, R/o.1-110/A/55/A

Gopalreddynagar, Kondapur,

Hyderabad.                                                                                                ..Appellant/

                                                                                                                Opposite party.

G.Shantaiah S/o.G.Pentaiah

Aged about 40 years, Occ:Ex.Serviceman,

R/o.Plot No.977, Siddihnagar, Kondapur

Hyderabad, rep. by his GPA holder,

Mr.Thakur Rajkumar Singh,

S/o.late T.Deen Dayal Singh

Convenor & G.S.Human Rights &

Consumer Forum Cell (BMRWS)

R/o.BHEL, MIG 982,

Serilingampally, Hyderabad.                                                                          Respondent/

Counsel for the  Appellant: Mr.K.Lakshman

Counsel for the Respondent: -Respondent present in person.

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

Oral Order ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Gopalakrishna Tamada, President.)

***

        The opposite party is the appellant and this  appeal is directed against the orders in C.C.No.194/2013 dated 10-1-2014 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District wherein the District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent and directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,71,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.1,08,500/- from the date of the complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

        The brief facts that led to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased 100 sq. yds. of open plot in Survey No.159 part situated at Miyapur village, Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District from the opposite party for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,500/- and paid an amount of Rs.8,500/- and the opposite party issued  a plot allotment letter on 18-12-2002.  The complainant on 25-7-2006 paid another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance for additional three plots in Survey No.159 part of Miyapur village and the opposite party has been postponing registration of the above said plots on one pretext or the other and thereafter the complainant came to know that the land in which the plots were allotted belongs to Government.  The complainant submitted that he was cheated by the opposite party and had the opposite party handed over physical possession of the plots and registered the same, he would have constructed the house in the year 2002 and alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, he filed the complaint.

        The opposite party refused to receive the notice and hence the District Forum held that service of notice on opposite party is sufficient and set it exparte.

        The District Forum after considering the entire evidence on record including Exs.A1 to A3 marked on behalf of the complainant allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to  pay an amount of Rs.3,71,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.1,08,500/- from the date of the complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

        As stated supra, the said order is under challenge before us.

        Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person.

        The respondent in support of his case filed Ex.A2, allotment letter to show that he paid Rs.8,500/- to the appellant out of the total consideration of Rs.13,500/- and a plot was allotted to the complainant in Survey No.159 part of Miyapur village and the respondent also filed another receipt marked as Ex.A3 to show that he also paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant as advance for three plots in the same survey number and the land in which the plots were allotted belongs to Government and in total he paid Rs.1,08,500/- to the appellant.

        The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant could not appear before the District Forum due to lack of notice and the District Forum had set him exparte and therefore submitted that he was not given an opportunity to contest the case and requested to remand the matter to the District Forum.  The respondent in person opposed the said contention stating that the appellant ought to have been vigilant and ought to have contested the matter before the District Forum.

Taking into consideration the contentions of both the parties and as it is a settled principle of law that a decision rendered on contest of the matter is more appropriate than the decision rendered exparte and as the appellant could not contest the matter for the reasons beyond its control and was deprived of an opportunity to put forth his claim, to meet the ends of justice and, however, due to laches on the part of the appellant, we remand the matter to the District Forum to dispose of the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both sides in accordance with law, however on payment of costs of Rs.8,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent, Mr. G.Shantaiah.

Accordingly  this appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum for disposal afresh after giving opportunity to both sides in accordance with law.  The appellant/opposite party is directed to pay costs of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees Eight thousand only) to the respondent/complainant, Mr. G.Shantaiah.   The District Forum shall permit the appellant to proceed with the case  on ascertaining payment of costs to the complainant.    Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                                Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                             Dt.01-7-2014.