BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 79/2007 against C.C. 146/2006, Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
1) M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 1 Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009
Rep. by its Managing Director
Col. N. Ranga Rao
S/o. N. V. Naidu
2) Narne Ranga Rao
Managing Director
Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.
No. 1 Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009
*** Appellants/
Ops 1 & 2.
And
1. Cheedella Anjaneyulu
S/o. China Venkateswarlu
Age: 40 years,
R/o. 35/156, Kesavaswamypet
Opp Thatha Lakshmi Prasad Kalyana Mantapam
Ongole. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2. Capt. K. V. Sastry
District Marketing Officer
Branch Office,
Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Srinivasa Colony, Kurnool Road
Ongole. . *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
(R2 not a necessary party)
F.A. 80/2007 against C.C. 113/2006, Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
1) M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 1 Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009
Rep. by its Managing Director
Col. N. Ranga Rao
S/o. N. V. Naidu
2) Narne Ranga Rao
Managing Director
Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.
No. 1 Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
And
1. G. Varalaxmi
W/o. Siva Rao, Age: 42 years
35-1-408(3), Near Park
3rd Line Bhagyanagar
Ongole. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2. Capt. K. V. Sastry
District Marketing Officer
Branch Office,
Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Srinivasa Colony, Kurnool Road
Ongole. . *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
(R2 not a necessary party)
F.A. 81/2007 against C.C. 144/2006, Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
1) M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 1 Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009
Rep. by its Managing Director
Col. N. Ranga Rao
S/o. N. V. Naidu
2) Narne Ranga Rao
Managing Director
Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.
No. 1 Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
And
1. Cheedella Anasuyamma
W/o. Late Chinna Venkaeswarlu
Age: 60 years.
2. Cheedella Kasiviswanadham
S/o. Late China Venkateswarlu
Age: 44 years.
3. Cheedella Anjaneyulu
S/o. China Venkateswarlu
Age: 40 years,
4. Cheedella Govindarajulu
S/o. Late Chinna Venkateswarlu
Age: 46 years All are R/o. 35/156,
Kesavaswamypet
Opp Thatha Lakshmi Prasad
Kalyana Mantapam, Ongole. *** Respondents/
Complainants.
5. Capt. K. V. Sastry
District Marketing Officer
Branch Office,
Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Srinivasa Colony, Kurnool Road
Ongole. . *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
(R5 not a necessary party)
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. K. R. Koteswara Rao.
Counsel for the Resps: Mr. Suresh Kumar Poturi.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) These appeals are preferred by opposite party Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. against the orders of the Dist. Forum on separate complaints directing it to register the plots and deliver possession besides payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.
2) Since these appeals are preferred by the very opposite party M/s. Narne Estates against the orders of the Dist. Forum on the complaints filed by complainants pertaining to the same venture, and as common questions of fact and law are involved, we are of the opinion that all these appeals can be disposed of by a common order.
3) The case of the complainants in brief is that appellant is carrying on real estate business. Pursuant to its advertisement inviting the public for sale of plots, they booked plot No. Y-59 (F.A. 79/2007), Plot No. 63 & 64 (F.A. 80/2007) and plot No. 14 (F.A. 81/2007) admeasuring 250 sq.yds each in Sector-V of East City by making initial payment of Rs. 4,500/- and paid an amount of Rs. 37,500/- in instalments (F.A. 79/2007). Despite payment of entire sale consideration and demand to register and deliver the possession of property the appellant kept quiet without any response. However, the appellant demanded heavy amounts under the guise of development charges. Since the prices have been escalated day to day the appellant had devised these means to get over and enclosed a cheque for Rs. 37,500/- (F.A. 79/2007), styling it as refund of payment. Since it does not depict the amount for which they made payments they did not encash it. Clauses on the reverse of the application are unilateral and had no application. Therefore they got issued a legal notices and filed the complaints directing the appellant to register and deliver the possession of the property together with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- per year.
4) The appellant resisted the case. While admitting that it has been carrying on the business of real estate business and started a venture under the name and style of ‘East City’ the complainants had entered into an agreement wherein there was a categorical stipulation that breach of any of the conditions, the agreement is liable to be cancelled. The complainants had failed to pay the instalments by due date despite its relentless persuasions. It could secure only 25 instalments, though the agreements contemplate that they should pay by February, 1999. The obligation to pay the development chares is known to the complainants. It had demanded development charges at Rs. 1,000/- per month per plot from April, 1999. It had issued 15 reminders from 12.5.1999 to 28.4.2005. All through the complainants had kept silent without payment of amount. Therefore it was forced to cancel the allotment, refunded the entire amount paid by them without deducting any service charges though it was entitled to do so as per clause 5 of the agreement. The complainants were trying to get advantage out of their own default. Since the allotments were cancelled and the amounts paid had been refunded, they were not entitled either for registration or for possession of plots. They were chronic defaulters. They did not pay the development charges for a long period of six years in spite of several requests. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaints with exemplary costs.
5) The complainants in proof of their case filed their affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A15 in C.C. No. 146/2006, Exs. A1 to in A12 in C.C. No. 144/2006 and Exs. A1 to 10 in C.C. No. 113/2006 marked, and the appellant filed the affidavit evidence of its Chairman & Managing Director and he did not file any documents.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainants were never defaulters, paid the entire sale consideration. Since the appellant could not prove that it had incurred development charges and non-payment of amount could not be a ground for cancellation of agreements, therefore it has directed the appellant to deliver possession after executing the registered sale deed besides compensation and costs of Rs. 1,000/- each.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite parties preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that payment of development charges is a pre-requisite. It had developed the residential plots despite non-payment of the amount. When the complainants did not pay the development charges he was not entitled either for registration or for possession of the plot. The complainants had kept silent for six years. The complaints are barred by limitation. Therefore it prayed that the appeals be allowed by dismissing the complaints.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the orders of the Dist. Forum are vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainants have been allotted house plots Nos. Y-59 (F.A. 79/2007), Plot No. 63 & 64 (F.A. 80/2007) and plot No. 14 (F.A. 81/2007) admeasuring 250 sq.yds in Sector-V of East City floated by the appellant a real estate company evidenced under Ex. A1 allotment letter wherein he was directed to pay Rs. 37,500/-. It may be stated herein that no amount was noted towards the development charges or registration charges. What all they required to pay was Rs. 37,500/- each vide Ex. A14, A11 allotment letter Dt. 12.5.1999 allotting plot No. 59 & 14 in C.C. 146/2006, C.C. 144/2006 respectively consisting of 250 sq.yds for Rs. 37,500/-. There was a mention that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards development charges was to be paid per month commencing from April, 1999 in order to carry out bush clearance, marking the plots, laying the roads, open drains, sewerage lines, water liens, street lights and avenue plantation etc. Obviously the development charges do not form part of sale consideration. The appellant while directing the complainants to pay Rs. 62,201, Rs. 63,607/- and Rs. 67,888/- vide Exs. A1 to A3 respectively (F.A. 79/2007) did not mention any amount towards sale consideration. What all that was mentioned was the amount payable towards sale consideration was Rs. 37,500/-. It is not in dispute that the complainants had paid the entire amount towards sale consideration.
10) The complainants have been issuing notice after notice directing the appellant to execute the registered sale deed and deliver possession. When it did not evoke any reply they got issued a legal notice through their advocate under Ex. A5 dt. 14.3.2006 for which the appellant gave reply under Ex. A10 (F.A. 79/2007). For the first time it alleged that there has been delay in payment of instalments and non-payment of the development charges as agreed upon and therefore it has cancelled the agreements and the monies were refunded by way of cheques. It was not encashed by the complainants paid towards sale consideration. Questioning the cancellation of agreements and refund of the amount, the complainants filed the complaints.
11) However, the complainants have received the letters informing the cancellation of the agreements and the cheque towards sale consideration on the ground that the complainants did not fulfil the terms of the agreement by paying the amounts by due dates. It further alleged ‘as per the terms and conditions agreed upon at the time of booking of the plot, you were required to clear all your dues by July, 2002. We had been patiently waiting for your remittances but to no avail Apart from numerous reminders to clear your dues, we had expressed our constraint to initiate action for cancellation of plot allotment vide our letters Dt. 9.10.2004, 5.2.2005, 28.4.2005 and 21.5.2005 but even those have failed to elicit any positive response from you.” But it did not mention that the agreement was cancelled due to non-payment of development charges. On that the complainants issued legal notices Ex. A5 dt. 14.3.2006 questioning the cancellation for which the appellants gave reply Ex. A10. On that the complainants questioning the cancellations filed the above said complaints.
12) At the outset, we may state that while issuing reminders Exs. A1 to A3 dt. 29.11.2003, 20.2.2004 and 9.10.2004 it had claimed development charges of Rs. 62,201, Rs. 63,607/- and Rs. 67,888/- respectively (F.A. 79/2007). The appellant could not show that it had incurred a particular amount towards development of the project and the complainants had to pay the amount on prorata basis as agreed upon. We may state that though the amount towards development charges was not quantified under Ex. A14, the appellant in Ex. A1 quantified the development charges at Rs. 55,201 and registration charges at Rs. 7,000/-. In other words for a plot worth Rs. 37,500/- the appellant was claiming Rs. 67,888/- in February, 2006 towards development charges. It was also claiming registration charges contrary to the provisions of Registration Act which in fact had to be paid by the vender at the time of registration. Obviously, the appellant intends to have the above registration charges, for utilizing the same for its business. It is not authorised to claim from the purchaser. It is contrary to law. So also under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, the agreements could not have been cancelled for non-payment of development charges which did not form part of sale consideration. More over, the appellant cannot go on demanding the amounts on one head or the other and non-payment of it cannot be termed as violation of the agreement. When the complainants have been insisting for execution of sale deed having paid the entire sale consideration the appellant ought to have registered the plot and delivered it. If any amount is due towards development charges it could have recovered. However, having received the consideration, it cannot delay execution of sale deed.
The demand for registration charges and cancellation of agreement for non-payment is contrary to law. Equally so for non-payment of development charges. We reiterate that the appellant was unable to file any document to show that the complainants had to pay a particular amount towards development charges. Since it is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 necessarily it must have been maintaining accounts. It could have filed at least a copy of the account to show the amount that was spent towards development charges. It cannot claim exorbitant amounts, and on non-payment of it can terminate and cancel the agreements. It is highly arbitrary and unjust. For the first time the appellant refused to register, by cancelling the allotment and refunding the amount by letter Ex. A4 Dt. 23.2.2006. The complainants filed the complaint on 6.6.2006 within the limitation as contemplated u/s 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore the complaints are not barred by limitation. The Dist. Forum after considering the entire evidence in this case had rightly directed the appellant to execute registered sale deed and deliver possession.
13) We do not see any merits in the appeals. In the result the appeals are dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 09..06. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
