Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/09/16

Smt. G. Bhagyamma D/o G. Pedda Buchanna O/c Household - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.K. Traders, Gadwal, rep. by its Manager & 3 others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M. Chennaiah Goud

30 Oct 2009

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

       Friday, the 30^th day of October, 2009

                         Present:-   Sri  T. Ashok Kumar, M.A., LL.B., I  Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge-cum-FAC President

          Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, B.Com. LL.B., Member

               Smt. B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member

                                                                                               C.C.NO. 16  Of   2009

Between:-

Smt. G. Bhagyamma D/o G. Pedda Buchanna, age: 20 years, Occ: HOusehold, R/o Lattipuram village, Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.                                                                                       

                                                                              … Complainant

And

1. J.K. Traders, Municipal Shop No.F8, Gadwal, Rep. by its Manager.
2. Smt. Saleema Bee W/o late Md. Jameel Ahmed, age: 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.7-9-192, Rajiv Marg, Opp: Nallakunta Park, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar.
3. Iqbal Ahmed S/o late Md. Jameel Ahmed, age: 22 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.7-9-192, Rajiv Marg, Opp: Nallakunta Park, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar.
4. Akmal S/o late Md. Jameel Ahmed, age: 21 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.7-9-192, Rajiv Marg, Opp: Nallakunta Park, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar.                                                                                                                                                   … Opposite Parties

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 25-09-2009 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri T. Manohar, Advocate, Gadwal for the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 and OP-1 having been set exparte and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:   

O R D E R

(Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, Member)

1.  This is a complaint filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant   praying this Forum to direct the OPs to execute the registered sale deed of the plot No.53/A, extent 133.33 sq. yards out of Sy.No.741, Chanakyapuri, situated within the limits of Douderpally village, Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District in favour of the complainant and to pay    Rs.10,000-00 to the complainant towards damages and compensation   and also costs of the complaint. 

2.   The case of the complainant is that the OP-1 firm is registered firm.    OPs.2 to 4 are the legal heirs of    Md. Jameel Ahmed who established the OP-1 firm and acted as its Managing Partner.   During his life time he started a real estate venture in Sy.No.741 of Douderpally village of Gadwal Mandal in the name of Chanakyapuri.   The complainant joined in the venture as scheme member vide Membership No.233 and paid Rs.150/- per month for 40 months in terms of the scheme to allot plot bearing No.53/A admeasuring 133 square yards.  The scheme was commenced on 16.9.1992 and ended by 15.5.1997.   The complainant paid entire scheme amount of Rs.6,500/- to Md. Jameel Ahmed and got allotted the plot.   But unfortunately the said Md. Jameel Ahmed died without executing the sale deed.   The OPs.2 to 4 have succeeded to him as his legal heirs and continued the scheme.   The complainant approached OPs.2 to 4 several times but they evaded to register the plot.  Thus they rendered services in deficit.   The complainant got issued legal notice to them on 15.4.2008 but they refused to receive the same.  Thus OPs.2 to 4 adopted unfair trade practice and caused much mental agony to the complainant as such they are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages and compensation apart from executing the registered sale deed and costs of the proceedings.     

3.    On the other hand the contention of the OPs.2 to 4 is that they are no way concerned with OP-1 firm and they are unaware about the same and its transaction.   Though they are the legal heirs of late Md. Jameel Ahmed, they did not succeed to his estate as they were not having good terms with him as he was addicted to bad vices during his life time.  Therefore they are not at all responsible and concerned to the same.  Moreover the complaint is barred by limitation and the complaint is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.  Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.     

4.    The opposite party No.1 is remained exparte.

5.    The complainant filed her affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-38.

6.   The OPs.2 to 4 filed their affidavits. 

7.    Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the Forum has jurisdiction?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

8.   Point No.1:- The OPs.2 to 4 contended that the complaint is barred by    limitation as the scheme was completed by May, 1997.  The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has paid entire scheme amount as such the cause of action will continue till the execution of sale deed.   It is evident from Exs.A-1 to A-29 that the complainant has paid entire scheme amount.  The Hon’ble National Commission in Juliet V. Quadros Vs. Mrs. Malti Kumar & Others case reported in CPR 2005 (2) P.57 on which the complainant relied on wherein it is held that “Dealing with the first point of Limitation first, this point has been very comprehensively dealt with in the order passed by the District Forum.   It is not in dispute that till date neither possession has been given nor the money has been refunded as demanded by the complainants from the petitioner, hence as rightly held by the District Forum, the cause of action continues and we are in full agreement with this.   Since this was a continuous cause of action in the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said to be barred by limitation”.     

     In light of the above decision, facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the cause of action is in continuous as the complainant has paid entire scheme amount and the burden lies on the OPs to execute the sale deed.  Therefore the complaint is very much within limitation period.  Hence this point is decided against the OPs.2 to 4. 

9.  Point No.2:- The OPs.2 to 4 further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint.  The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that as per Section 11 of C.P. Act, 1986 this Forum is having jurisdiction to decide the complaint.   Admittedly the OPs.2 to 4 are actually residing at Gadwal Mandal of Mahabubnagar District and dealing the business.  Moreover the scheme scheduled land is also situated at Gadwal Mandal of Mahabubnagar District.   The complainant also paid installment amounts to OP.1 at Gadwal which creates cause of action to file a complaint.   The claim of the complainant is also not acrossing the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. In these circumstances, as per Section 11 of C.P. Act this Forum has jurisdiction to decide the complaint.  Hence this point is decided against the OPs.2 to 4.      

10.  Point No.3:-   The complainant relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-38 to prove her case.   Ex.A-31 dated 2.5.1997 shows that every member has to pay 40 monthly installments to get allotment of plot.  It is clearly evident from Exs.A-1 to A-29 that the complainant has paid 40 installment amounts at Rs.150/- p.m. totaling to Rs.6,500/- by 15.5.1997 to OP-1 firm.  Ex.A-30 proves that OP-1 firm allotted plot No.53/A in the proposed scheme.  It is also evident from Ex.A-36 that the complainant got issued legal notice to OPs.2 to 4.  Exs.A-33 to A-35 clearly prove that the OPs.2 to 4 have refused to receive the said notice.  

          There is no dispute with regard to succession.  Admittedly the OPs.2 to 4 are the legal heirs of late Md. Jameel Ahmed.  The contention of the OPs.2 to 4 is that they are unknown to the venture and its transactions at any point of time.   The learned counsel for the complainant drawn our attention on Ex.A-37 to disprove the version of the OPs.2 to 4 and argued that the OPs.2 to 4 being legal heirs and successors of late Md. Jameel Ahmed they continued the venture even after the death of Md. Jameel Ahmed and executed registered sale deeds to some of the other scheme members.    We have gone through the said Ex.A-37 and observed that the OPs.2 and 3 executed sale deed for two plots bearing Nos.95-A & 95-B in scheme scheduled lands i.e., land bearing Sy.No.741 in favour of one Smt. B. Sarojamma on 10.11.2005.    Therefore we are of the opinion that the OPs.2 to 4 being legal heirs of late Md. Jameel Ahmed continued the said scheme and executed the sale deeds.    Thus we are of the considered opinion that the OPs.1 to 4 are liable for the firm transaction and they have rendered services in deficit by avoiding execution of sale deed in respect of allotted plot bearing No.53/A in scheme scheduled land in favour of the complainant even after receiving entire scheme amount though they are having title, right, possession whatsoever.   

       The complainant sought direction to OPs.1 to 4 to execute the registered sale deed in her favour and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages and also costs of the proceedings.   The complainant filed E.C. Certificate i.e., Ex.A-38 to show that still the allotted plot is not registered to anybody.    However it is observed from Ex.A-37 that apart from OPs.2 & 3 some other person by name P. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy jointly executed the said sale deed of another plots of same scheme lands.  The said P. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy is not a party to these proceedings.  There is no material before us to show his locus standi.   Therefore in our opinion it is not proper to direct the OPs alone to register the plot.  Hence to avoid further litigation and to meet the ends of justice, we are of the opinion that it is proper to direct the OPs.1 to 4 jointly and severally to refund the amount actually paid by the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 15.5.1997 till the payment.   

       The complainant has not filed any material in support of her claim of Rs.10,000/- towards damages.  Hence she is not entitled for the same.  However she is entitled for the costs of the proceedings.  In our opinion Rs.500/- is the reasonable amount to award as costs of the proceedings because the complainant got issued legal notice and filed the complaint by engaging advocate and also spending court fee.      

 11.  In the result, the complaint is allowed.   The OPs.1 to 4 are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.6,500/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred only) together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 15.5.1997 to till the payment.   The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.   The OPs are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.    Rest of the claims are disallowed.

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum   on this the 30^th day of October, 2009.           

        

               MEMBER                                MEMBER                        PRESIDENT (FAC) 

     Appendix of evidence

       Witness examined

For complainant: Nil                                                 For opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-     

Ex.A-1:   Original Receipt, Dt.16.9.1992.

Ex.A-2:   Original Receipt, Dt.22.10.1992.

Ex.A-3:   Original Receipt, Dt.25.11.1992.

Ex.A-4:   Original Receipt, Dt.25.11.1992.

Ex.A-5:   Original Receipt, Dt.5.1.1993.

Ex.A-6:   Original Receipt, Dt.6.2.1993.  

Ex.A-7:   Original Receipt, Dt.3.3.1993.

Ex.A-8:   Original Receipt, Dt.7.4.1993.

Ex.A-9:   Original Receipt, Dt.7.5.1993.

Ex.A-10: Original Receipt, Dt.14.6.1993.

Ex.A-11: Original Receipt, Dt.19.11.1993.

Ex.A-12: Original Receipt, Dt.19.11.1993.

Ex.A-13: Original Receipt, Dt.19.11.1993.

Ex.A-14: Original Receipt, Dt.19.11.1993.

Ex.A-15: Original Receipt, Dt.19.11.1993.

Ex.A-16: Original Receipt, Dt.17.12.1993.

Ex.A-17: Original Receipt, Dt.8.2.1994.

Ex.A-18: Original Receipt, Dt.8.2.1994.

Ex.A-19: Original Receipt, Dt.9.3.1994.

Ex.A-20: Original Receipt, Dt.8.4.1994.

Ex.A-21: Original Receipt, Dt.28.5.1994.

Ex.A-22: Original Receipt, Dt.22.4.1995.

Ex.A-23: Original Receipt, Dt.22.4.1995.

Ex.A-24: Original Receipt, Dt.22.4.1995.

Ex.A-25: Original Receipt, Dt.22.4.1995.

Ex.A-26: Original Receipt, Dt.22.4.1995.

Ex.A-27: Original Receipt, Dt.22.4.1995.

Ex.A-28: Original Receipt, Dt.22.4.1995.

Ex.A-29: Original Receipt, Dt.15.5.1997.

Ex.A-30: Membership No.233.

Ex.A-31: Original Receipt, Dt.2.5.1997.

Ex.A-32: Postal Card for 28^th Draw.

Ex.A-33: Returned Postal Cover.

Ex.A-34: Returned Postal Cover.

Ex.A-35: Returned Postal Cover.

Ex.A-36: Legal Notice, Dt.15.4.2008.

Ex.A-37: Xerox copy of Registered Sale Deed, Dt.3.11.2005.

Ex.A-38: Original E.C., Dt.15.6.2009.

Exhibits marked for OPs.:-   

     - Nil-

By the Forum:

     - Nil-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT (FAC)

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.
2. Sri T. Manohar, Advocate, Gadwal for the opposite party Nos.2 to 4.
3. J.K. Traders, Municipal Shop No.F8, Gadwal, Rep. by its Manager.