BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Wednesday the 07th day of July, 2010
C.C.No 88/09
Between:
M.Dhanavardhan, S/o Sri Lakshma Naik,
R/o D.No. 87/40, Sree Lakshmi Nagar,B-Camp, Kurnool Town-518 002.
…..Complainant
-Vs-
K.J.Reddy, S/o K.Narayana Reddy,Managing Director,Raga Mayuri Builders (Pvt) Ltd.,
D.No.50-760-A/120, Gayathri Estate, Kurnool Twon-518 002.
…Opposite Party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. D. V. Jogaiah Sarma , Advocate, for complainant , and Sri. B. Jangam Reddy, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C C. No. 88/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OP
(i) to take necessary immediate steps for getting the approval from the local body ( i.e, Dinnedevarapadu Village Panchayat) for the layout laid by the company of the OP including the complaint schedule plot , and
(ii) to pay a sum of Rs. 19,00,000/- towards damages to the complainant ,
(iii) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards the costs of the complaint and
(iv) grant such other and further relief’s this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant purchased the house plot bearing No. 117 shown in the schedule from the OP under the registered sale deed dated 21-12-2005. At the time of selling the schedule plot , the OP represented that the plot No.117 is in approved layout by the Gram Panchayat of Dinnedevarapadu. The complainant purchased the said plot under the bonafide belief that the plot purchased by him is in approved layout. After the purchase of plot the complainant submitted a building plan to the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of locating a mineral water plant in the said plot. The Gram Panchayat , Dinnedevarapadu refused to sanction approval for construction of the building to the complainant on the ground that the said layout in L.Dis.No.9/2001 was not at all approved by Gram Panchayat . Then the complainant approached the OP and that the OP informed him that he was taking steps for getting the approval of the layout .Believing the assurance given by the OP the complainant started the construction work in the plot . When the construction was going on the officials of Gram Panchayat of Dinnedevarapadu came to the spot and stopped the construction work on the ground that the layout is not approved and the building permission is not there . The complainant invested an amount of Rs.15 lakhs for construction of the building in the plot purchased by him. The OP deceived the complainant and sold the plot which is not in approved layout. The OP also deceived the complainant by encouraging him to proceed with the construction activity in the plot making a false promise of taking steps to get layout approved from the Village Panchayat of Dinnedevarapadu. Alienating a plot which is not in approved layout amounts to deficiency of service . The complainant suffered mental agony and torture due to the attitude of the OP. The complainant also got issued legal notice dated 15-01-2009 to the OP to take steps to get the approval of the layout. The OP did not take steps to get the layout approval . The complainant gave a police complaint and it was numbered as Cr.No.23/2009 dated 05-02-2009. The police did not take any action against the OP. Hence the complaint.
3. The OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The date on which the cause of action arose is not mentioned in the complaint. The reliefs asked for are in the nature of mandatory injunction mentioned under specific relief Act . Such relief can be granted only by a Civil Court .The complainant got possession of the schedule land under the sale deed and he also constructed pakka building there in. The terms in the sale deed dated 21-12-2005 only will bind the parties. The schedule land with other extent of land was previously purchased by the OP on 09-02-2005. In the sale deed of the complainant it is specifically mentioned the names of the earlier owners, the layout got approved by the earlier owners and the layout number. The land was laid into plots by the previous owners. The complainant purchased the land only for a commercial purpose to sell for higher price to make a profit . The plot is in approved layout as per the sale deed under which the OP purchased it . The complainant instead of filing the suit for getting necessary relief of permission for building construction against Gram Panchayat wrongly filed the present complaint with the prayer. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The complainant wants to make money by black mail method. The complainant also lodged a private complaint against the OP in Cr.No.23/2009 . The police referred the said case as false. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint. The claim of the complainant is false. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A6 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of OP no document is marked sworn affidavit of OP is filed.
5. Both parties filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether the complaint is maintainable ?
(ii) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
- whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
- whether the complaint is bared by time
(iv) To what relief?
7. Points 1 to 3:- Admittedly the complainant purchased plot No. 117 situated with in the limits of Dinnedevarapadu (v) form the OP under a registered sale deed Ex.A1 dated 21-12-2005 .The said plot was purchased by the complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.78,500/- as mentioned in Ex.A1. It is the case of the OP that the complainant is not a consumer that the dispute between the complainant and the OP is not a consumer dispute and that the complainant is not maintainable . It is for the complainant to show that he is a consumer as defined in Sec. 2(1) (d) of the Act. Sec. 2(1)(d) (ii) provides that consumer is a person who hires or avails any services for a consideration : In the present case admittedly the complainant purchased house plot bearing No. 117 from the OP for a consideration of Rs.78,500/- . The complainant purchased the plot by paying consideration to the OP . The word service is defined in Sec. 2(1) (O) of the Act. The definition does not include the rendering of any service free of charge . Admittedly the OP in the present case received consideration from the complainant and executed Ex.A1 sale deed. The definition of service includes no using construction . In the instant case admittedly property that was sold to the complainant by the OP is a house plot bearing No. 117 . The contention of the OP that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complaint is not maintainable is not acceptable.
8. It is the case of the complainant that the OP sold the plot to him stating that the plot is in approved lay out , approved by the Gram Panchayat of Dinnedevarapdu in L.Dis .No. 9/2001 dated 20-06-2001 . The OP also asserts that what is sold to the complainant under Ex.A1 is plot No. 117 in the layout plan got approved by Chalapathi Housing Finance Private Limited , Kurnool in L.Dis 9/2001 dated 20-06-2001 . As seen from the recitals in Ex.A1 it is very clear that the OP was not the owner of the plot No. 117 sold to the complainant by the date of alleged approval on 20-06-2001 . According to the OP the land was purchased from Chalapathi Housing Finance Private Limited, Kurnool under registered sale deeds dated 23-11-2004 , 09-02-2005, and 21-03-2005. The alleged layout was done before the OP purchased the land. In Ex.A1 it is mentioned that plot No. 117 sold to the complainant is in approved layout L.Dis.No.09/2001 dated 20-06-2001.
9. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that plot sold to him by the OP is not in the approved lay out and that the recitals in Ex.A1 that plot No. 117 is in a approved layout is false . The complainant in support of his contention that the plot is not in approved layout , relied on Ex.A5 and Ex.A6. Ex.A5 is the letter addressed by the Panchayat Secretary , Dinnedevarapadu to the General Manager , District Industries Centre , Kurnool . In the said letter it is mentioned that the plot No. 117 is not in approved layout of the Gram Panchayat. There is also recital in Ex.A5 that layout was not approved by the Gram Panchayat in L. Dis.No. 09/2001 dated 20-06-2001 .Ex.A6 is the letter addressed to the complainant by the Gram Panchayat Officer dated 14-10-2008 . In the said letter also it is clearly mentioned that Raaga Mayuri Builders Private Limited laid the plots without obtaining the permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat. In Ex.A4 letter dated 25-01-2008 addressed by Panchayat Secretary , Dinnedevarapadu Gram Panchayat to the complainant , it is mentioned that the land purchased by Raagamayuri Builders is an agricultural land and it has to be converted form agriculture to non agriculture. As seen from the recitals in the above documents it is very clear that the layout was not approved by the Gram Panchayat , Dinnedevarapadu . It is stated by the complainant in his sworn affidavit that he purchased the plot basing on the representation made by the OP that the plot 117 is in approved layout . The OP cannot escape liability by saying that the alleged lay out was done before he purchased the land from Chalapathi Housing Finance Private Limited . The OP did not place any documentary evidence that the plot sold to the complainant is in approved layout. It is for the trader who is doing real estate business to see that the plots are in approved lay out . The complainant purchased the plot on the belief that it is in approved layout . The OP by mentioning in the sale deed in Ex.A1 that the plot is in approved layout made the complainant to purchase plot No. 117 .
As per Sec. 55 of the T. P. Act the seller is bound to disclose to the buyer any material defect in the property . The OP adopted unfair method by making false representation that the plot No. 117 is in approved layout . It is found that the plot No. 117 is not in approved lay out as mentioned in the sale deed Ex.A1 . There is unfair trade practice and amounting to deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The OP suppressed the fact that the plot purchased by the complainant is not in approved layout .
10. The complainant filed the complaint praying to direct the OP to take steps for getting the approval of the layout from the local body . The OP sold the plots to various persons .Admittedly the OP is not the owner of the plots that were sold. The person who is not a owner of the property can not apply for approval of the layout . In the present case it is the complainant who is the owner of the plot No. 117 . Therefore the Op can not be directed to get the approval of the layout from the local panchayat. The complainant also prays to grant sum of Rupees 19 lakhs towards damages . It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the plot from the OP , he started the construction and applied for permission to the local Panchayat for the construction of the building in plot No. 117. Admittedly the complainant constructed part of the building in plot NO. 117 purchased by him without obtaining prior permission from the local Panchayat. For making construction by the complainant without obtaining the prior permission from the local Panchayat , the OP cannot be held responsible. The complainant submits that he incurred damage of Rs.19 lakhs by making construction in the plot purchased by him. Except an allegation in the complaint and also in the sworn affidavit of the complainant , there is no material to show that the complainant spent Rs.19 lakhs for the construction of the building in the plot purchased by him. As already stated the plot purchased by the complainant is not in approved layout. The OP sold the plot to the complainant stating that the plot bearing No. 117 is in approved layout. The building permission cannot be issued unless there is approved layout by the local Gram Panchayat. As the OP sold the plot which is not in approved layout , the OP is liable to pay compensation to the complainant . As already stated there is no material on record to show that the complainant suffered damage of Rs.19 lakhs. As seen from Ex.A1 it is very clear that the complainant purchased the plot for Rs.78,500/- . The complainant is not in a position to make use of the said plot as there is no approved layout . Therefore I think it is just and proper to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.78,500/- to the complainant with interest at 18% from the date of Ex.A1 dated 21-12-2005 till the date of payment.
11.Point No. 4:- It is the contention of the OP that complaint is bared by time . Sec. 24-A provides that the District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Admittedly the complainant purchased the plot from the OP under Ex.A1 dated 21-12-2005 . It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the complainant came to know about the fraud played by the OP only when he received Ex.A4 letter dated 25-01-2008 issued by the Gram Panchayat . As already stated in Ex.A1 sale deed it is clearly mentioned that the plot purchased by the complainant is in approved layout . Under Ex.A4 letter dated 25-01-2008 the complainant was informed by the local Panchayat that the plot purchased by him is not in approved layout and that fresh layout proposal has to be submitted to Gram Panchayat. The complainant filed the present complaint on 18-03-2009. The complaint is filed within two years after the complainant came to know about the defect . The complaint is within time.
11. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.78,500/- with interest at 18% from the date of Ex.A1 i.e, 21-12-2005 till the date of payment and also to pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 07th day of July , 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Registered Sale deed dated 21-12-2005 executed by OP in favour of the complainant .
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Layout plan named as “Mayuri Green City ,
Phase-I”
Ex.A3. Office copy of the legal notice dated 15-01-2009.
Ex.A4. Photo copy of letter dated 25-01-2008 from Panchayat Secretary , Dinnedevarapadu Village to complainant.
Ex.A5. Photo copy of letter dated 16-05-2008 from Panchayat Secretary , Dinnedevarapadu Village to General Manager, DIC, Kurnool.
Ex.A6. Letter addressed to the complainant by the Gram Panchayat Officer dated 14-10-2008.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on:
