BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONAT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1354/2007 against C.C. 113/2006, Dist. Forum,
Medak at Sanga Reddy
Between:
1. M/s. Rajashree Housing Estate (P) Ltd.
D.No. 17-17, Flat No. G7
Vijayasree Nilayam
Annapurna Kalyanamandapam Road
Sree Nagar Colony, Dilsukhnagar
Hyderabad-500 060.
2. M. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Veerabhadraiah
Chairman & Managing Director
M/s. Rajashree Housing Estate (P) Ltd.
D.No. 17-17, Flat No. G7
Vijayasree Nilayam
Annapurna Kalyanamandapam Road
Sree Nagar Colony, Dilsukhnagar
Hyderabad-500 060.
Regd. Office : D.No. 27-37-52
Opp. Super Bazar, Bander Road
Vijayawada-520 002.
3. Ambada
Instalment collection person
M/s. Rajashree Housing Estate (P) Ltd.
D.No. 17-17, Flat No. G7
Vijayasree Nilayam
Annapurna Kalyanamandapam Road
Sree Nagar Colony, Dilsukhnagar
Hyderabad-500 060.
4. Ramakrishna
General Manager
M/s. Rajashree Housing Estate (P) Ltd.
D.No. 17-17, Flat No. G7
Vijayasree Nilayam
Annapurna Kalyanamandapam Road
Sree Nagar Colony, Dilsukhnagar
Hyderabad-500 060. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
And
Mahenderkar Shiva Kumar
S/o. M. Gopi Krishna
Age: 32 years,
H.No. 3-5-1, Nehru Road
Sadasivapet-502 291
Medak Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. K. Venkateswarlu
Counsel for the Resp: P.I.P.
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI G. BHOOPATHY REDDY, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THIS THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party M/s. Rajashree Housing Estates (P) Ltd., against the order of the Dist. Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy in directing it to execute registered sale deed of the plot No. 103 by virtue of Ex. A1 plot allotment agreement together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the first appellant is a firm M/s. Rajashree Housing Estates (P) Ltd., at Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, 2nd appellant is its Chairman & Managing Director, 3rd appellant is the collection agent and the 4th appellant is the General Manager. It has floated a scheme under the name Sri Sai Gold Township, Phase-II, wherein any member joined in the scheme entitled to a plot in S.No. 12, Batasingaram, Hyatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. A member had to pay admission fee of Rs. 150/-, initial payment of Rs. 2,500/-, plot allotment/reservation of Rs. 10,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- p.m. towards monthly instalments. He had to pay Rs. 5,875/- on every fifth month towards special instalment, in all Rs. 99,000/-. The plot will be registered on payment of full amount. Accordingly, he joined as a member on 22.3.2005. The 3rd appellant, collection agent collected monthly instalments of Rs. 31,150/- up to March, 2006 and passed receipts. Thereafter he stopped coming and collecting monthly instalments. When enquired, he was informed that he was not coming for collection for his own personal problems. The apppellants had allotted plot No. 103 consisting of 200 sq.yds.
On 25.4.2006 he informed that he was ready to pay the entire price amount and register the plot to him. He gave a registered notice for which the appellants gave a reply with false allegations that it cannot register as it was registered in favour of 3rd party. Therefore, he filed the complaint to direct the appellants to register the plot after receiving the balance of sale consideration.
The Managing Director (Op2) filed counter adopted by others denying the averments made in the complaint. However, it admitted that it started a scheme wherein a member had to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month and Rs. 5,875/- on every fifth month as special instalment without any default. In the event of default, the amount together with interest @ 2% had to be paid. If default is made for three consecutive ordinary instalments and two special instalments, the membership shall stands cancelled. The amounts that were paid would be forfeited. The complainant defaulted in payment of regular instalments as well as special instalments from March, 2006, therefore, he is not entitled either to claim the amount or insist for registration. Clause-6 stipulates that the Management has right to alter partially or fully if necessary or allot alternative plot. Since the complainant had violated the terms, he was not entitled to the said plot. Though the complainant was a defaulter, he was given an opportunity to choose any of the four or five plots situated nearby and they were ready to execute the sale deed in his favour, provided he pays balance of sale consideration, however, plot No. 103 cannot be given to him. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and Exs. A1 to A19, importantly Exs. A2 to A16 original receipts and Ex. A19 original pass book. The opposite parties did not file any evidence.
The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant had paid the instalments and it was the appellants who had failed to collect the said amount. When the appellants had allotted plot No. 103 vide plot allotment letter Ex. A1, they have to execute the same after receipt of balance of sale consideration.
Aggrieved by the said order the opposite parties preferred this appeal contending that the complainant himself committed default in payment of instalments, and therefore, he is not entitled to insist for registration. At any rate, plot No. 103 was already sold away, and four or five plots are vacant in the same block, and they are ready to execute the same. Therefore, they prayed that the appeal be allowed.
It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is a member in the scheme run by the appellant, wherein it has agreed to execute plot No. 103 in S.No. 12 in an extent of 200 sq.yds in favour of complainant on payment of instalments vide Ex. A1 plot allotment agreement. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had paid Rs. 31,150/- which includes monthly instalments as well as special instalments. It is also not in dispute that the 3rd appellant has collected these instalments from the complainant till March, 2006 on 23.3.2006 evidenced under receipt No. 37/29. It was towards 12th instalment. When the complainant alleged that the collection agent had stopped coming and collecting the amounts and when he enquired he stated that he could not come due to his personal problems, the appellants issued a registered notice under Ex. A18 directing him to pay Rs. 1,000/- on or before 14.11.2005 either personally or through his collection agent. The receipts issued by the very appellants would show that subsequently he had paid 9th to 11th instalments which were received by the appellants evidenced under Exs. A19 and it did not raise any objection in this regard. Neither the plot allotment letter Ex. A1 nor the brochure Ex. A17 spell the said condition as alleged in their counter.
Except raising this contention, the appellants did not file any agreement wherein they have a right to cancel the allotment in default of payment of three consecutive instalments, equally that they have a right to allot some other alternative plot.
Importantly, when the complainant filed his affidavit, and documents to show that he was ready and willing to perform the other terms of the contract and in fact complied all the terms, none of the appellants chose to contradict by filing affidavits or documents in proof of their contention. The Dist. Forum is correct in observing that the appellants had failed to adduce any evidence controverting the facts averred by the complainant in his affidavit. They stand uncontroverted. Except alleging that plot No. 103 was alienated to third party, no evidence whatsoever was filed to show to whom it was sold and the date of sale. Obviously, the appellants intend to inconvenience the complainant and deny his rightful claim to the said plot, and as such all these specious pleas. We do not see any mis-appreciation of facts or law in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal. Necessarily, the complainant had to deposit balance of sale consideration within one month as directed by the Dist. Forum, and on such deposit the appellants had to execute a registered sale deed as directed.
In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 1,000/-.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Dt. 5. 8. 2008.
*pnr
