F.A.No.524  OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.38 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM,  Ranga Reddy District.

Between:

1.   V.Krishna Prasad Managing Director

Kiran Krishna Real Estate & Constructions

Pvt. Ltd., Head office at 50-40-13/A/5,

TPT Colony, Visakhapatnam-13.

2.   M/s Kiran Krishan Real Estates &

Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Branch office

At Vivekanandanagar, Kukatpally,

Hyderabad.

3.   Kiran Krishna Real Estates and Constructions

Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director,

Sri V.Krishna Prasad.                                                                                           Appellants/opp.parties. 

A N D

J.Madan Mohan Reddy S/o.late J.Venkata

Reddy, aged 48 years, R/o.JS-20,HMT Colony

Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.,500 054.                                                             Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellants             M/s A.Ramakrishna Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent           M/s.P.Nagendra Reddy

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/c.President.

                                                                                                                AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

THURSDAY,  THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER

                                                                                                TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

 Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble I/c. President)

                                                                                                ***

          The opposite parties are the appellants.

          The complaint is filed by the respondent seeking for  direction to the appellants to register plot No.445 in his name and also to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation in lieu of cost of plot as the land value has increased and Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages.

          The case of the respondent is that the appellants started a venture called ‘Cyber Valley Golden Circle’ in Sy No.225/226 of Vattinagulapalli of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The respondent submitted that on payment of initial amount of Rs.25,000/- he was allotted plot No.445  and as per the scheme, the cost of the residential plot has to be paid forty instalments at the rate of Rs.1500/- per instalment and six special instalments of Rs.10,000/- each and initial payment of Rs.25,000/- which amounts to Rs.1,65,000/-.  The respondent submitted that he paid Rs.1,65,000/- to the appellant towards the cost of the plot measuring 200 sq yds in 34 instalments from May, 1999 to June, 2003 and the plot has to be registered in his name after payment of 50% of the amount and the appellants did not register the plot inspite of payment of full amount by June, 2003. 

The respondent submitted that initially he was told that there was no approach road to the venture and thereafter he was told that Sy.No.225/226 of Vattinagulapalli village was under G.O.No.111 and the registration of sale deed could not be done  and on enquiry he was told that there is no bar for registration of plot and he obtained encumbrance certificate that registration were made by the company and the refusal to register his plot was that the land value in the area has escalated very rapidly.  The respondent submitted that he requested the appellants to register the plot and they refused to register the same and after much persuasion and request the appellants promised to allot alternate plot in another venture at Isnapur village and they did not keep up their promise.  The respondent submitted that he gave notices to the appellants several times and the latest  on 18-12-2009 and there was no response from the appellants which amounts to deficiency in service.

          The appellants resisted the case contending that the complainant has not paid Rs.1,65,000/- towards cost of the plot No.445 admeasuring 200 sq. yds. in 34 instalments from May, 1999 to June, 2003.  The appellant submitted that they issued allotment letter in favour of the respondent allotting plot No.445 which is situated at Vattnagulapalli (V) of Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District and submitted that as per G.O.No.111, the registration of the plots could not be done and the respondent has made false allegation that he requested them to arrange another alternative plot in Isnapur village, Medak District.  The appellants contended that the respondent created documents and he has not approached the District Forum within 2 years limitation period and therefore the complaint be dismissed.

          The appellant No.3 resisted the case and stated that after payment of initial amount of Rs.25,000/-, the company issued allotment letter to the respondent allotting  Pot No.445 admeasuring 200 sq. yds. @ Rs.825/- per sq. yd.  The appellant No.3 submitted that as per G.O.No.111, the registration of plots could not be done and the respondent has not paid the total consideration of Rs.1,65,000/-and demanding them for registration of the plot by filing fabricated documents.  The appellant No.3 submitted that as on 07-3-2002, the respondent has to still pay Rs.44,500/- and he is a defaulter for payment of three regular instalments and leads to cancellation of his membership and also loses the right of specific performance and that appellant No.3 is no way connected with the statement of account issued by AXIS bank.  The appellant No.3 submitted that as per G.O.No.111, the local authorities and the people at large prohibited by various conditions from raising any construction within 10 Km radius of the lake and in view of the said prohibition, it could not enforce registration and submitted that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          The respondent filed his  affidavit and relied on Exs.A1 to A16 and the MD of appellant No. 1 filed his affidavit and the appellants did not choose to file any documents.

          The District Forum allowed the complaint directing appellants 1 to 3 to refund Rs.1,65,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15-6-2003 till realization to the respondent together with Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

          Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellants  have filed appeal contending that the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation and the decision of the National Commission relied upon by the respondent is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is contended that the respondent kept quiet for considerable period of time.

          The point for consideration is whether the complaint is filed within the period of limitation?

          The appellant floated venture, ”Cyber Valley Golden Circle” in the year,1999 at Vattinagulapalli village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. The respondent joined the scheme to purchase 200 sq.yards of plot for consideration of Rs.1,65,000/- payable in 34 installments spread over a period of four years. The respondent paid initial amount of Rs.25,000/- on 08-5-1999 and the appellant issued allotment letter dated 01-6-1999 in favour of the respondent.

          The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the last payment of the amount was made in the year,2003 and the complaint ought to have been filed in the year,2005 and as it is filed in 2010, it is barred by law of limitation. It is true, the respondent made payment of sale consideration for the last time in 2003.

          Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act provides for two years as the period within which the complainant has to file his complaint before the District Forum.  The period of two years has to be reckoned from the date of cause of action.  We may quote the Section which reads as under:

          24A.  Limitation period. - (l) The District Forum, the State Commis­sion or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2)     Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

The respondent has stated that he has requested continuously ever since he paid sale consideration in 2003 and the appellant postponed on the premise of G.O.Ms. No. 111 which is admitted by the appellant no.3 who in paragraph no.15 of the counter has stated the effect of the G.O. prohibiting sale transaction of the land at Vattinagulapalli village as under:

“It is specifically submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.111 (M.A.) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.192, M.A. Department dated 31-1-2002,. This village Vattinagulapally  in Rajendranagar Mandal having situated in the catchment area of Himayatsagar and Osman sgar, the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide its G.O.Ms.No.192, M.A. Dept, dated 31-1-2002 directed the local Authorities and the people at large prohibited various developments within the 10 km radius of the said lakes and village which are prohibited from undertaking development works are depicted vide a separate annexure appended to the said G.O. is enclosed herewith.  In view of the above said prohibition even assuming for a moment there was an agreement the same would be vitiated by doctrine of frustration as such the also the so called agreement would hit from ‘ SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT’.

          The respondent got issued notice requesting the appellant to register the plot and the appellant admitted receipt of notice which was not given reply on the premise of the respondent’s claim being fictitious. The appellant had not denied receipt of letters from the respondent with request for execution of sale deed and prohibition imposed by the G.O.No.111 of sale transaction of the land a part of which, viz., plot was agreed to be sold to the respondent. The respondent addressed letter dated 18.12.2009 requesting the appellant either to register the plot or refund the amount. The letter reads as under:

Sir,

                Sub: Registration of plot-reg.

I have paid an amount of Rs.165,000/- towards the cost of plot in your Golden Circle venture in survey No.225/226 of Vattinagulapalli of Ranga Reddy District.  I have paid the full amount in the year 2003 itself.  Even though I have requested you several times over the last 8 years you have not registered the plot in my favour. I have also met your Manager Mr.Srinivas innumberable times requesting to register the plot. I have also requested you atleast pay back my money with interest thereon.  But there is no response from your side. This clearly amounts to cheating and criminal breach of trust.

I therefore once again request you either to register the said plot or pay back the money with interest thereon failing which you will be liable to be prosecuted under civil as well as criminal laws.

Thanking you,

Time is not essence of contract as the appellant has gone on promising the respondent that it would register the plot once the prohibition imposed by the G.O.No.111 ceased to exist and thereafter it failed to respond either to  execute sale deed in respect of the plot under sale or return the amount received from him. The appellant failed to do any of the acts and the respondent filed complaint having failed to draw response for his letter dated 18.12.2009. Thus, it cannot be said that the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation or that the appellant is not liable to pay the amount back to the respondent.

For the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the appellant failed to establish that the complaint is not filed within two years from the date of cause of action. As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no separate order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                                                                                                Sd/-INCHARGE PRESIDENT.

                                                                                                                                                Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                                                            Dt.26-12-2013.