BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 743/2007 against P.P. 43/2006 in C.C. 171/2002, Dist. Forum, Guntutr.
Between:
G. Subba Rao, S/o. Ramaiah
D.No. 5 – 410 (D)
Opp. C.E. Hosptial, Kurnool Road
Ongole. *** Appellant/
. Complainant
And
1. Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd.
5/1, Arundelpet, Guntur
Rep. by its Managing Director
Madala Sudhakar.
2. Madala Sudhakar
Managing Director
Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd.
5/1, Arundelpet, Guntur
3. The Divisional Branch Manager
(P.R. & Mkt), Janachaitanya Housing
Pvt. Ltd. Pasumalai Complex
5/1, Arundelpet, Guntur *** Respondents/
OPs
F.A. 744/2007 against P.P. 42/2006 in C.C. 170/2002, Dist. Forum, Guntutr.
Between:
G. Subba Rao, S/o. Ramaiah
D.No. 5 – 410 (D)
Opp. C.E. Hosptial, Kurnool Road
Ongole. *** Appellant/
. Complainant
And
1. Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd.
5/1, Arundelpet, Guntur
Rep. by its Managing Director
Madala Sudhakar.
2. Madala Sudhakar
Managing Director
Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd.
5/1, Arundelpet, Guntur
3. The Divisional Branch Manager
(P.R. & Mkt), Janachaitanya Housing
Pvt. Ltd. Pasumalai Complex
5/1, Arundelpet, Guntur *** Respondents/
OPs
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. V. Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. M.Srinivasa Swaroop ( R1&R2)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) The complainant preferred these appeals against dismissal of the petitions filed u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2) Though the Dist. Forum by separate orders dismissed the petitions filed u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection as they are in between the same parties, we are of the opinion that the they could be disposed of by a common order. Except for the description of the property, rest of the facts are one and the same.
3) On the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant the Dist. Forum by its order dt. 29.3.2004 directed the complainant to pay balance of consideration and further to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards development charges within six weeks, and on such deposit the opposite parties are directed to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant.
4) The complainants after taking demand drafts for towards balance sale consideration and development charges filed petitions u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act by directing the respondent to comply the order of the Dist. Forum by executing the register sale deed in his favour.
5) The respondents/opposite parties resisted the petition alleging that the complainant did not comply the order of the Dist. Forum by depositing balance sale consideration and development charges within six weeks from the date of receipt of order, and therefore the order has become inoperative. The fact that he had deposited the amounts was not even informed. At any rate, it was more than two years after the period stipulated. It was barred by limitation. Therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the contentions opined that the complainant himself being a defaulter, not complying the order of the Dist. Forum he cannot turn round and seek prosecution against the respondents/opposite parties. Accepting the deposit beyond the period stipulated would amount to review or modification of the order which could not be done in the penalty proceedings, accordingly the petitions were dismissed.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeals contending that the Dist. Forum failed to appreciate that when a decree passed in a civil court, could be executed within a period of 12 years it would be equally done here. He had obtained demand draft towards balance sale consideration and development charges and expressed his readiness to bear the registration charges etc. and thus complied the order of the Dist. Forum and it is up to the opposite parties to execute the registered sale deed. The Dist. Forum ought not to have insisted on technicalities and should have allowed the petitions.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law and liable to be set-aside?
9) It is an undisputed fact that on the complaints filed by the complainant/appellant for executing a registered sale deeds in his favour by the opposite parties, the Dist. Forum by its order Dt. 29.3.2004 passed similar order viz. :
“In the result the complaint is partly allowed as follows :
The opposite parties are directed to register the sale deed in favour
of the complainant after receiving the balance of consideration
and Rs. 10,000/- towards development charges. The complainant
should bear the registration charges.
Each party is directed to bear their own costs.
The amounts ordered above shall have to be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
The said order was received by the complainant on19.4.2004. Admittedly he did not comply the above said order within six weeks as directed by the Dist. Forum. He did not seek extension of time by filing an application, though such a procedure was not contemplated. Two years there after, he took demand drafts on 10.4.2006 one for balance of sale consideration and another for development charges and filed the petition on 1.5.2006 to punish the opposite parties/respondents as provided u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for non-compliance of the above said order.
10) Indisputably the very complainant did not comply the order in order to insist the Dist. Forum to punish the opposite parties/respondents for non-compliance of the order. Compliance of the order by himself is a condition precedent for invoking Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. No reason whatsoever was mentioned as to why he could not comply the order within six weeks as stipulated by the Dist. Forum. In a somewhat similar case inGulshan Bajwa Vs. Lokpriya Sehkari Avas Samity Ltd. reported in II (2003) CPJ 393
11) Learned counsel for the complainant relied a decision inreported in III (2006) CPJ 373 (NC).
12) To sum up, when the complainant had failed to implement the order, he cannot turn round and insist the opposite parties/respondents be punished for violating the order. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the compliance of the order of the Dist. Forum is a condition precedent for the complainant to take action against opposite parties/respondents. Since he did not fulfill the terms. there is no justification in resorting to Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. He has to blame himself for this pass. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
13) In the result the appeals are dismissed. However, no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 31. 05. 2010.
*pnr
