NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/31/2006

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

J. SUBBA RAO - Opp.Party(s)

Y.RAJAGOPALA RAO

10 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 16 Jan 2006

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIAPPEAL NO. No. FA/31/2006
(Against the Order dated 01/12/2005 in Complaint No. 118/2002 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ORS.1-10-75-/1/1 TO 6 , IST FLOOR , SAPTAGIRI TOWERS , BEGUMPET HYDERABAD - ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. J. SUBBA RAOH.NO. 2-2-1137/2/B , NEW NALLAKUNTA HYDERABAD - ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Y.RAJAGOPALA RAO
For the Respondent :-

Dated : 10 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

PER JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in C. D. No. 118 of 2002, the opposite parties have filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant with the following direction:- “In the result the complaint is partly allowed giving the option to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,41,753/- in addition to the plot already registered in favour of the complainants or in the alternative refund the maturity amount of Rs.5,68,250/- with interest @ 9% from 5.12.2000 till the date of payment. The opposite parties also directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-. Time for compliance six weeks.” 2. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint before the State Commission and the pleas on which the complaint was sought to be resisted by the appellant-opposite parties and various developments which had taken place in the matter, have been noticed in the impugned order and need no repetition at our end. 3. The complaint before the State Commission was filed claiming the refund of the deposited amount of Rs.5 lakh with interest. Admittedly, the amount was not returned because of the strained financial condition of the opposite parties-company, which became the subject matter of proceedings before the Company Law Board and later under the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. It would appear that the Company Law Board gave directions to the opposite parties to pay back the amount of the depositors in three instalments with interest but the opposite parties could not adhere to the said arrangement. Ultimately, it would appear that in order to satisfy the claim of the complainant for refund of the deposited amount and accrued interest, the opposite parties offered 7 plots of land valued at Rs.5,85,000/-, which was accepted by the complainant and the plots of land were conveyed in his favour through registered sale deed. It would appear that subsequently the complainant realized that the plots of land were of no value to him and, therefore, sought cash payment in lieu of the plots. There was a dispute about the valuation of the plots of land. In view of the plea taken by the complainant, the Commission considered the question of valuation of the plots of lands in some detail and valued the said land @ 300/- per square yard and computing the value of the plots of land at the said rate, came to the conclusion that there was a difference of Rs.4,41,753/- which the opposite parties should pay to the complainant to reinstate him to his original position. 4. We have heard Mr. Y. Rajagopala Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.S. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent and have given our thoughtful consideration to their submissions. 5. The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that once it was shown to the satisfaction of the State Commission that in order to realize the scheme formulated by the Company law Board, the parties had entered into an agreement and in pursuance of the said agreement, sale deeds of 7 plots of land were executed and registered in favour of the complainant in full and final satisfaction of his claim in regard to the FDR’s in which he had invested the money, the State Commission could not have gone into the question of valuation of the 7 plots of land which the complainant had received in terms of the settlement. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the land, which was conveyed to the complainant, was without his consent and, in any case, the land could not be located on the spot and was absolutely of no value. 6. Having considered the question, we are of the view that there is force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant because having found that the parties have settled the matter, the State Commission could not go into the question of valuation of the said land. The insistence of the complainant on refund of the deposited amount with interest in cash after the said settlement, which had been realized on the ground by execution of registered sale deeds, was wholly unjustified. We are not prepared to believe the complainant/respondent that the entire process for settlement as also the execution of the sale deed was fraudulent, the complainant being a party to the said settlement and the registered sale deeds. However, in order to mitigate the hardship which the complainant claims to be suffering due to non-receipt of the amount in cash and his inability to sell out the said plots at present, we enquired with the learned counsel for the appellant if the appellant could help the complainant in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant, under instructions from the Director of the appellant-company, stated that the appellant would not mind paying a sum of Rs.1 lakh more to the complainant in addition to the sum of Rs.2 lakh already paid by him to the complainant under the directions of the Commission, in addition to 7 plots of land which have already been conveyed in favour of the complaint through registered sale deed. In our opinion, nothing more could have been done on the part of the appellant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and the order of the State Commission needs to be suitably modified having regard to the offer made by the appellant before this Commission. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is modified in the following manner:- “The respondent/complainant has 7 plots of land having already been conveyed and registered in his favour pursuant to the settlement reached between the parties and in addition, the complainant having already been paid a sum of Rs.2 Lakh under the direction of this Commission, we call upon the appellant to pay further a sum of Rs.1 Lakh to the respondent within a period of four weeks by means of demand draft.”


......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER