Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/08/65

Smt.Faheema Begum W/o Mohd.Mubeen, O/c Household - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohd Basheer, S/o Mohd. Osman, O/c Business - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M.M.Sakhi Ahamed

19 Sep 2008

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday the 18^th day of September, 2008

                                     

                Present:-  Sri M.Rama Rao, B.A.,LL.B., President

  Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, B.com., LL.B., Member

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

                                                                                       C.C.No.65 Of  2008

 

Between:-

 

Smt.Faheema Begum, W/o Mohd. Mubeen, age 22 years,  Occ: House hold affairs R/o H.No.6-4-84/7-B, Momin Mohella, Gadwal Town, Mahabubnagar Dist.

  

… Complainant

 

And

1. Mohd. Basheer, S/o Mohd. Osman, age 38 years, Occ: Business,  Bajaj Show Room, R/o Gadwal.

 

2. P.Karunakar Reddy @ Bachi, S/o Pulla Ramudu, age 37 years,  Occ: Business, R/o Gadwal, Opp. S.B.I. Bank, Gadwal.

 

3. Akbute Ravi Kumar, S/o Akbute Vasantha Rao, age 40 years,  Occ: Business, R/o Vedanagar Street, Gadwal.

 

4. K.Sudershan, age 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o Burdapet Street,  Gadwal, Sri Venkata Laxmi Saree House at Gadwal.

 

                                                                                … Opposite parties

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 05-9-2008 in the presence of Sri M.M.Sakhi Ahamed, Advocate, Gadwal for the complainant and of Sri Laxman, Advocate, Gadwal for OP.Nos.1, 3 and 4 and OP.No.2 having been set exparte and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

                                                                                    (Smt. B.Vijaya Kumari, Member)

                                   

      This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties jointly and severally to register the plot measuring 30 x 40 feets in land Sy.No.1021 and 1031situated within the limits of Gadwal sivar in favour of the complainant and also pay costs of the complainant.

 

     The complaint averments are as follows:-  OPs.1 to 4 are the partners of Sri Sai Priya Real Estates, Gadwal.  The opposite parties started a housing plot venture under the name and style of Shiva Sai Nagar in the land Sy.No.1021 and 1031 situated in the limits of Gadwal sivar.  The duration of the scheme is 40 months and the extent of the plot is 1200 sq. feet.  Each member has to pay Rs.250/- per month.  The scheme was started in the month of October, 2000.  The complainant has joined as a member in the said scheme and that the opposite parties allotted a membership No.404.    As per the terms and conditions of the scheme there will be a lucky draw every month conducted by OPs and the lucky draw winner of the said scheme need not pay the further monthly instalments and the lucky draw winner becomes absolute owner of the plot allotted by the opposite parties. The complainant has joined as a member in the said scheme and that she paid regularly upto 12 monthly instalments and obtained receipts.  In the month of September, 2001 in the chit dip the complainant is declared as the lucky winner in the scheme.  Subsequently the opposite party No.2 has agreed to allot a plot on her name and that he has executed an agreement in her favour for the purpose of executing and registering the allotted plot to the complainant and OP.2 has given undertaking to register the plot on her name after the expiry of the stipulated period of the scheme on her own expenses for registering the plot.  After completion of the scheme period the complainant approached the opposite parties to execute the registered sale deed of the allotted plot and expressed her readiness to pay the registration charges.  But the opposite parties postponed the execution of the registered sale deed as per the terms and conditions of the scheme.  The complainant got issued legal notice on 3-06-2008.   On 14-06-2008 OPs.1,3 and 4 have received the said legal notice but they did not give any reply to the said notice.  On 20-06-2008 the complainant again sent notice to OP.No.2.  OP.No.2 has returned the postal registered cover as refused.  OPs rendered defective service and also cause of action arose on 03-06-2008 on which the complaint got issued legal notice to them.  Hence the complaint.

 

The opposite party No.2 set exparte.

 

    The opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 filed counter with the following averments:-  It is true that the opposite parties floated a house plot scheme in Gadwal sivar in the month of October, 2000.  The complainant has joined in the scheme as a member and the opposite parties allotted membership No.404.  The complainant paid 12 monthly instalments regularly  @ Rs.250/- per month and obtained cash receipts from the said scheme. It is also true that in the month of September, 2001 the complainant is a winner in the lucky dip and as per the terms OP.No.2 had executed an agreement in favour of the complainant and also they directed her to approach the office after expiry of the scheme period for the registration of the allotted plot on her name on her own expenses of registration charges accordingly.  The opposite parties handed over the agreement written by them in favour of the complainant.  In the mean time there were disputes between the partners and subsequently OPs.1,3 and 4 handed over the entire charge of the said plots scheme business to OP.No.2. and in this regard they have executed an internal agreement and the content in agreement is that OP.No.2 will be incharge of entire scheme transaction and the opposite parties 1,3 and 4 are separated from the said business and they are not at all concerned with the said scheme.  Hence OP.No.2 is wholly responsible for the registration of the plot to an extent of 30 x 40 feets in sy.nos.1021 and 1031 situated in the limits of Gadwal sivar on the name of the complainant on her own expenses of the registration charges. In view of the above reasons the complaint is liable to be dismissed against OPs.1, 3 and 4.   

 

The complainant filed her affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-20.

 

The opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 filed affidavit and got marked Ex.B-1 on behalf of them. 

 

The point which falls for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

 

   The case of the complainant is that OPs 1 to 4 are the partners of  Sri Sai Priya Real Estates, Gadwal.  The opposite parties started a housing plot venture under the name and style of Shiva Sai Nagar in the land Sy.No.1021 and 1031 situated in the limits of Gadwal sivar.  The extent of each plot is 30x40 feets and the duration of the scheme is 40 months and each member has to pay Rs.250/- per month.  Every month there will be a lucky draw and the winner in the draw need not pay the remaining instalments and that the plot will be allotted to the winner after completion of the scheme period.  The registration charges should be born by the member only.  The complainant has joined as a member in the said scheme and OPs have allotted membership No.404 to her.  The complainant has paid monthly instalments regularly from October, 2000 to September, 2001 and obtained cash receipts.  In the month of September, 2001 the complainant was a winner in the lucky dip and subsequently the opposite parties have agreed to allot a plot and that OP.No.2 has executed an agreement in favour of the complainant for the purpose of allotting a plot.  After completion of the scheme period the complainant approached the opposite parties to execute the registered sale deed of the said plot and expressed her readiness to pay the registration charges.  But the opposite parties postponed the execution of the registered sale deed as per the terms and conditions of the said scheme and also failed to show the plot.  The opposite parties have rendered services in deficiency by avoiding the registration of the allotted plot.  The complainant got issued legal notice on 03-06-2008. 

 

  On the other hand, the opposite parties 1,3 and 4 have taken a plea that they are not at all concerned with the scheme transactions as they have separated from the said scheme due to some disputes within the partners.  Subsequently the opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 have handed over the entire charges of the said scheme to OP.No.2  “Mr.Karunakar Reddy” after they have compromised and entered into an agreement.  As per their agreement Ex.B-1, OPs.1, 3 and 4 are separated and they are no way concerned with the said scheme.  The opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 have stated that as per their agreement OP.No.2 is liable and has to execute sale deed and deliver the possession of the allotted plot in favour of the complainant.  Further OP Nos.1, 3 and 4 have admitted all the facts of the case of the complainant.  

 

   OP.No.2 remained exparte.  The allegations in the complaint stand   uncontradicted.  On the other hand the opposite parties 1,3 and 4 have admitted all the facts of the case.  Moreover the complainant has adduced evidence in the form of affidavit to support her case.  The complainant has got marked Exs.A-1 to A-20.  Exs.A-1 to A-12 are payment receipts issued by the opposite parties.  Ex.A-13 legal notice.  Ex.A-19 an agreement executed by OP.No.2 Mr.P.Karunakar Reddy in favour of the complainant on 24-09-2001 and Ex.A-20 is the Xerox copy of the sale deed executed by OP.No.2 on 11-10-2006 to the third person Mrs.Rajeeya Begum who is one of the co-members in the said scheme.  Payment receipts Exs.A-1 to A-12 prove that the complainant is a member of the said scheme.  According to the scheme rules a member who has been declared as winner in the dip is entitled to obtain the plot in the scheme.  As per the terms the winner need not pay the remaining instalments amount and the winner is entitled to get registration of the allotted plot in the scheme.  The Ex.A-19 original agreement executed by OP.No.2 proves that the complainant is a winner of the 12^th month draw conducted on 15-09-2001.  As per terms the complainant is entitled to get a plot in the said scheme from 24-09-2001 on that date the opposite party No.2 executed an agreement in favour of the complaint for the purpose of execution of the sale deed.   Ex.A-19 shows that the opposite party No.2 is a responsible person to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant.  In the counter and also in the agreement OP Nos.1, 3 and 4 have stated that the OP.No.2 is a responsible person to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant.  OP.Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed an agreement to support their version and it is marked as Ex.B-1.  As per their agreement OP.Nos.1, 3 and 4 are not concerned with the said scheme.  Hence the case against OPs.1, 3 and 4 is dismissed. Hence they are not concerned persons to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant.  As per Ex.B-1 and A-19 OP.No.2 is concerned person to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant.  Ex.A-20 xerox copy of the 3^rd party sale deed executed by OP.No.2 is also used to prove that OP No.2 is a concerned person to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant.  As per their agreement Ex.B-1, the entire scheme responsibility has been taken over by OP.No.2.  In the counter OPs.1, 3 and 4 have admitted all the facts of the case.

 

According to the complainant after maturity of the scheme period the complainant had approached OPs for registration and execution of the sale deed and delivery of the possession of the allotted plot in favour of the complainant.  The complainant had expressed her readiness for payment of registration charges according to the terms and conditions of the scheme.  But the opposite party No.2 postponed the execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant.   Ex.A-13 legal notice shows that OP.No.2 was avoiding the execution of the register sale deed and the delivery of the position of the allotted plot even after maturity of the scheme amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP.No.2. We, therefore hold that OP.No.2 is liable to execute the register sale deed of the allotted plot in the land bearing Sy.no.1021 and 1031 in Gadwal sivar in favour of the complainant.  The OP No.2 is also liable for costs of the proceedings for deficiency of service.

 

11.    In the result, the complaint is allowed.  OP. No.2 is directed to register  the allotted plot in Sy.no.1021 and 1031 situated at Gadwal sivar in favour of the complainant and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost  of the    proceedings.  OP.No.2 is further directed to comply with the order   within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The complaint against OPs.1, 3 and 4 is dismissed.

 

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 18^th day of September, 2008.

 

 

 MEMBER                               MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

 

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

 

For complainant: Nil                                                 For opposite parties:  Nil

 

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-

Ex.A-1:       Original receipt, dt.30.10.2000.

Ex.A-2:       Original receipt, dt.4.12.2000.

Ex.A-3:       Original receipt, dt.4.12.2000.

Ex.A-4:       Original receipt, dt.23.1.2001.

Ex.A-5:       Original receipt, dt.16.2.2001.

Ex.A-6:      Original receipt, dt.29.3.2001.

Ex.A-7:       Original receipt, dt.20.4.2001.

Ex.A-8:       Original receipt, dt.24.5.2001.

Ex.A-9:       Original receipt, dt.8.8.2001.

Ex.A-10:     Original receipt, dt.8.8.2001.

Ex.A-11:     Original receipt, dt.7.9.2001.

Ex.A-12:     Original receipt, dt.18.9.2001.

Ex.A-13:     Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.3.6.2008.

Ex.A-14:     Postal acknowledgement.

Ex.A-15:     Postal acknowledgement.

Ex.A-16:     Postal acknowledgement.

Ex.A-17:     Returned postal covers.

Ex.A-18:     Returned postal covers.

Ex.A-19:     Agreement, dt.24.9.2001.

Ex.A-20:     Xerox copy of Sale Deed, dt.11.10.2006.

 

Exhibits marked for OPs:-

 

Ex.B-1:    Partnership Cancellation Deed, dt.30.7.2001.

 

By the Forum:

   

     - Nil -

PRESIDENT

 

Copy to:-

1. Sri M.M.Sakhi Ahamed, Advocate, Gadwal for the complainant.
2. Sri Laxman, Advocate, Gadwal for OP.Nos.1, 3 and 4.
3. P.Karunakar Reddy @ Bachi, S/o Poola Ramudu, age 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o Gadwal, Opp. S.B.I. Bank, Gadwal.