BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.979/2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.536/2007,

 DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD

BETWEEN:

M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,

No.1, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad-500 009.

Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,

Col. N.Ranga Rao, S/o. Late N.V.Naidu,

Aged about 63 Years.                                            … Appellants / OPP. Party

AND

Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal,

S/o. Shri K. M. Agrwal,

Aged about 44 Years, Occ:Service,

H.No. G-304,Ivory Towers,

Sector 70, Mohali (Punjab) 160071.           …. Respondent/ Complainant

FA. NO. 980/2008 against CC.No.753/2006 District Consumer Forum-I,

                                                          Hyderabad.

Between:

M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,

No.1, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad-500 009,

Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,

Col.N.Ranga Rao, S/o. Late N.V. Naidu,

Aged about 63 Years.                                  ….. Appellants / OPP. Party

AND

Ramesh Kumar Gupta, S/o. Late Eshwarlal Gupta,

Aged about 50 Years, Occ: Business,

R/o. 7-1-563, Subash Road,

Secunderabad.                                            …. Respondent/ Complainant

FA. NO. 981/2008 against CC.No.754/2006 District Consumer Forum-I,

                                                          Hyderabad.

Between:

M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,

No.1, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad-500 009,

Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,

Col.N.Ranga Rao, S/o. Late N.V. Naidu,

Aged about 63 Years.                                  .. Appellants / OPP. Party

AND

Rajender,

S/o.Late Eshwarlal Gupta,

Aged about 44 Years, Occ: Business,

H.No.7-1-563, Subash Road,

Secunderabad.                                            …. Respondent/ Complainant

    Counsel for the Appellant                       :         M/s. K.B.Ramanna Dora.                       

       Counsel for the Respondents                      :         Mr. V.K. Sanghi.    

                QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONB’BLE MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND TEN

Common Oral order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1.     Though these appeals arise out of separate orders on the complaint filed against the same opposite party, since common questions of fact and law arise, they are disposed of by a common order.

2.     The opposite party preferred these appeals against the order of the District directing it to register plot on receipt of registration charges together with compensation and costs.

3.     The case of the complainants in brief is that they had paid different amounts for purchase of house plots in the layout made by the opposite party. Despite several requests as they did not execute the sale deed. On the other hand demanded Rs.25,000/- towards development charges and registration charges. Since the opposite party was not coming forward, they filed these complaints seeking registration of plots together with compensation and costs.

4.     The opposite party resisted the case. It alleged that the complainants had agreed to pay development charges besides registration charges and also interest on delayed payment. They were allotted plots on the applications filed by them. They had paid only basic land costs. However, they had developed the plots. The land cost has been tremendously increased in and around twin cities. Equally there was hike in the cost of cement, steel, etc. they are bound to pay development charges at Rs.250/- per square yard. The complainants are not entitled for registration of plots. The complaints are barred by limitation and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaints with costs.

5.     The complainants in proof of their case filed affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs. A.1 to 7 in CC.No.536/2007, Exs. A.1 to A.8 in CC.No.753/2006 and Exs. A.1 to A.8 in CC. No. 764/2006 respectively, while the opposite party filed affidavit evidence and the documents marked as Exs. B.1 to B.18 in CC.No.536/2007,Exs. B.1 to B.7 in CC.No.753/2006 and Exs. B.1 to B.7 respectively.

6.     The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record directed:

The opposite party in CC.No.536/2007 to register plot No.87 in Block AJ in Sector 5 of East City on receipt of Rs.6,000/- towards registration charges and in case opposite party is unable to register the plot it should register an alternate plot of similar dimensions in the same vicinity on receipt of registration charges as on November 2003. The opposite party was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50, 000/- and costs of Rs.2, 000/-.

The opposite party in CC.No.753/2006 to register plot No.44, Sector-4, Block UU and if it is not available to allot alternate plot near plot No.44, Sector-4, Block UU at the original rate with lay out sanctions as house site and register the same in the name of the complainant on receipt of development of charges if the ploy was development charges if the plot was developed to the satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards damages and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

The opposite party in CC.No.754/2006 to register plot No.45, Sector-4, Block UU and if it is not available to allot alternate plot near plot No.45, Sector-4, Block UU at the original rate with lay out sanctions as house site and register the same in the name of the complainant on receipt of development charges of the plot was developed to the satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

7.     Aggrieved by the said orders, the opposite party preferred these appeals contending that the District Forum went wrong in directing them to execute sale deed after lapse of three years. There was no delay or deficiency in service on their part. The complainant did not approach with clean hands. The compensation claimed was exorbitant and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaints with costs.

8.     The point for consideration is whether the orders of the District Forum are vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts or law in this regard?

9.     The learned counsel for the appellant represented across the bar that the registration of plots was made and therefore that part of the relief has become in fructuous. The learned counsel for the respondents/ complainants had admitted that the sale deeds were executed in favour of the complainant and therefore, the said question been not be considered.

10.             The only question that remains to be resolved is in regard to compensation.

11.            The learned counsel for the appellant  contended that though the complainants had claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/-, the District Forum awarded Rs.50,000/-

12.            A perusal of the complaints would undoubtedly show that though he complainant had claimed Rs.20,000/- Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards compensation, the District Forum for the reasons  not known awarded Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. Undoubtedly, there are latches on the part of the appellant in not executing the registered sale deeds. This fact was not disputed and in fact by virtue of the orders, the appellant has executed sale deeds in favour of the complainants / respondents herein. Undoubtedly, there was long delay which must have caused mental agony to the complainants. Considering the claim made by the complainants and the latches on the part of the opposite party/appellant herein we are of the opinion that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- in each case could be granted.

13.             In the result, these appeals are allowed in part. Consequently, the orders of the District Forum are modified reducing the compensation amount to Rs.20, 000/- in CC instead of Rs.50, 000/-. In all other aspects, the orders of the District Forum are confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals.

     PRESIDENT

      MEMBER

Dt: 09.09.2010.

*VVR