BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present : Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com.,
President(FAC)/Senior Member
Sri. G. Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B.Ed.LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR)
Male Member
16.08. 2010
C.C. No. 63 of 2009
Between:
- B. Hanmanth Raj S/o B. Ramulu,
Age: 35 years, Occ: business,
R/o H.No. 5-112, Behind Girls High School,
Patancheru.
- T. Viroopaksha S/o Lat eT. Manaiah,
Age: 44 years, occ: Business,
R/o 8-182/1, Road No. 1,
J.P. Colony, Patancheru. ……Complainants
And
- J. Ettaiah S/o Chennaiah,
Age: 58 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No. 4-142, Gokulnagar, Patancheru.
- J. Sai Kumar S/o Ettaiah,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No. 4-142, Gokulnagar,
Patancheru. ……Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 27.08.2010 in the presence of complainant in person and Sri J. Ram Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties No. 1 and 2, upon hearing arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Smt. Meena Ramanathan, President (FAC)/Senior Member)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to pay the amount of Rs. 2,36,000/- with interest @24% p.a. from the receipt of this amounts or to direct the opposite parties to execute the registered sale deed by taking the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/- and to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and costs.
1. The complainants stated that they are the residents of Ptancheru and they both are good friends. The opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 are known to them. The complainants submit that the opposite party No. 1 approached the complainants and offered to sell the plots bearing No. 450, 451 and 452 in Sy. Nos. 3 totals admeasuring an area of 682 sq. yards situated at Patancheru which were standing in the name of the opposite party No. 2. After negotiations the opposite party accepted to give the same for a total consideration of Rs. 3,41,000/- i.e. Rs.500/- per sq. yards and the complainants agreed for the same and paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance on 17.06.007 and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- at the time of registration the plot.
The complainant stated that the opposite party No. 1 executed a document dated 17.06.2007 in favour of the complainants stating that with the consent of the opposite party No. 2 and his family members are selling the plots for a total consideration of Rs. 3,41,000/- and received an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance and to receive the balance amount at the time of registration. The opposite party No. 1 also executed a separate receipt to that effect that the opposite party No. 2 has attested the document and receipt as witness No. 1.
The complainants stated that they were ready with the balance amount within 8 days from the date of the document but the opposite party No. 1 sought time for executing the register sale deed in favour of the complainant for the reasons best known to him. The opposite party No. 1 approached the complainants and taken an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 25.06.2007, Rs. 12,500/- on 03.07.2007, Rs. 2,000/- on 18.07.2007, Rs. 12,000/- on 25.05.2007, Rs.200/- and Rs.165/- on 19.10.2007. Thus a total amount of Rs. 36,865/- was paid to opposite party No. 1 from the balance amount of the sale consideration. The payment made to opposite party No. 1 was endorsed on the reverse of the receipt. The complainants submit that the opposite party No. 1 was postponing to executing registered sale deed in favour the complainants. The complainant submit that a panchayath was held on 05.10.2008 before elders. The opposite party No. 1 admitted the receipt of the total amount of Rs. 2,36,000/- as advance towards the sale of the plots and agreed to return the said amount within 75 days (i.e. 2 ½ months) and the same was reduced in writing on Rs.20/- stamp paper.
The complainants submit that on request to pay the said amount the opposite party No. 1 is postponing the matter on one pretest or the other. The complainants submit that on repeated requests made by the complainants the opposite parties failed to pay the amount, thus the complainant are constrained to file the complaint. The complainants submit that the opposite parties failed to discharge his services the opposite parties are liable to pay the said amount or to execute registered sale deed by taking the balance of sale consideration. The complainants submit that the complainant is within limitation as the cause of action arose on 05.10.2008. Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed their counter with the following averments:
Opposite parties filed counter stating that the complainant is incorrect to say that these opposite parties offered to sell the plots bearing No. 450,451 and 452 in Sy. No. 3 to an extent of 682 sq. yards., situated at Patancheru (V). It is incorrect to say that negotiations took place and these opposite parties agreed to sell the said plots for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,41,000/-. The alleged agreement is not correct hence denied and the complainants be put to strict proof of the same. It is also incorrect to say that the complainants paid Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance on 17.06.2007 and agreed to pay balance amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- at the time of registration of the plots.
Incorrect to say that the opposite party No. 1 executed a document dated 17.06.2007 stating that with the consent of his son i.e. opposite party No. 2 herein and his family members are selling the plots for the alleged price. As a matter of fact the opposite party No. 1 has no right to sell the said plots nor have any right to execute the alleged agreement of sale dated 17.06.2007. It is also incorrect to say that the opposite party No. 1 executed a separate receipt to the effect that the opposite party No. 2 has attested the document and receipt. The said pleadings categorically speaks that the original owner of the plots i.e. opposite party No. 2 was not present at the time of the alleged agreement nor he attested at that time. The very assertion that the opposite party No. 1 executing a separate receipt claiming that opposite party No. 2 has attested the document and receipt, the inference is that the opposite party No. 2 did not negotiate nor agreed to sell the plot to the complainants in their presence. The alleged agreement dated 17.06.2007 and the alleged separate receipt said to have been executed by the opposite party No. 1 are fabricated and brought into existence to extort money from these opposite parties. The very filing of the complaint before this forum suggest that to the complainants did not pay any amounts for purchasing the said plots and to extort money from these opposite party without paying proper court fee approached this Hon’ble forum.
The complainant it is incorrect to say that the complainants were ready with the balance amount within 8 days as claimed is not correct hence denied. There is no such agreement between the parties hence the question of their readiness does not arise. It is also incorrect to say that the opposite party No. 1 herein approached the complainants and taken Rs.10,000/- on 25.06.2007, Rs. 12,500/- on 03.07.2007, Rs.2,000/- on 18.07.2007, Rs. 12,000/- on 25.05.2007, Rs.200/- and Rs. 165/- on 19.10.2007 is not correct and all those endorsements and the signatures if any are forged and fabricated. It is also incorrect to say that the opposite party No. 1 was postponing the execution of registered sale deed in favour of complainant. The very agreement is not correct hence the question of postponing the execution of registered sale deed as claimed does not arise. It is also incorrect to say that a panchayat was held on 05.10.2008 before the elders. It is also incorrect to say that the opposite party No. 1 admitted the receipt of Rs. 2,36,000/- as advance towards the sale of plots and it is also incorrect to say that he agreed to return the said amount within 75 days. The alleged admission of the opposite party No. 1 on Rs.20/- stamp paper is not correct hence denied. The alleged agreement dated 05.10.2008 is fabricated document and the signature of opposite party No.1 is forged and brought up the said document. There is no private of contract between the complainants and opposite parties.
The complainant it is incorrect to say that the opposite party No. 1 was postponing the payment of alleged amount is not correct hence denied. The complainants be put to strict proof of the allegations made therein. It is also incorrect to say that the complainants made any request to pay back the alleged amount.
The complainant these opposite parties respectfully submit that, these opposite parties never offered to give their services in lieu of the alleged payments. The very complaint before this Hon’ble forum is not maintainable. The claim as it is comes within the purview of specific relief act. Under the forged and fabricated documents the complainants are trying to extort money from these opposite parties without paying proper court fee payable for the reliefs sought before the proper forum. If the documents dated 17.06.2007, 05.10.2008 and the alleged receipts are send to the forensic laboratory for comparison with the admitted signatures the truth will come out. The complainants have not approached the Hon’ble forum with clean hands and they lack bonafides.
The opposite parties respectfully submit that there is no relationship of consumer between the complainants and these opposite parties. These opposite parties never offered any services to the complainants. This Hon’ble forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there is no service offered by these opposite parties nor there is any relationship of consumer between the complainant and opposite parties. The complaint is liable to return on the ground of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint by this Hon’ble Forum. The complaint is filed only to extort money from these opposite parties basing on forged and fabricated documents.
Evidence affidavits of the complainant and the opposite parties are filed. Exs.A1 to A3 are are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents are filed for the opposite parties. Written arguments of both the parties are filed and oral arguments of both the sides heard. Perused the records.
The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to pay the balance of Rs.1,05,000/- as sale consideration and have the sale deed registered in his favour or direct the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs. 2,36,000/- plus interest.
Having heard the counsel for the parties and having gone through the material evidence, we are inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that they never offered any service to the complainant.
The reliefs sought by the complainant cannot be entertained in this forum. This has to be performed by invoking specific performance of the contract Act. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such claim, Much less marking the document s of the case. Ever the claim of the complainant for the recovery of the amount is civil nature.
The exhibit A1 is agreement on stamp paper saying that opposite party – have received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and value of the plot is Rs.3,41,000/-.
Ex.A2 is a cash receipt stating that opposite party Ettaiah – opposite party No. 1 received an amount Rs.2,00,000/-.
Ex.A3 there is overwriting and corrections and on Ex.A3 there is overwriting and corrections and date has been changed. There is signature for the once writings.
In the result the complaint is dismissed, bear their own cost. This complaint has to be dealt with is the civil court.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this day of September, 2010
Sd/- Sd/-
President(FAC)/Senior Member Male Member
