A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
FA 992/2008 against C.C. No.579/2007 on the file of DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD.
Between:
M/s Narne Estate 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
.. Appellant/OPP. Party.
And
Mr. Tara Singh,
S/o Teja Singh,
Aged about 44 years,
Occ: Police Constable,
R/o H.No. 2-2-715, Dhobhi galli,
Amberpet, Hyderabad
.. . Respondent/Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s K.B. Ramanna Dora
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. K.Venugopala Chary
CORAM:
SRI.SYED ABDULLAH .. HON’BLE MEMBER.
AND
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARSIMHA RAO… HON’BLE MEMBER.
Friday, The Thirteenth Day of August, TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (As Per Sri.Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member)
******
Aggrieved by the order dated 7th November, 2007 passed in CC 579/2007 directing the appellant/opposite party to register Flat Nos. 3 and 4, Block AG, Sector V, in favour of the Respondent / complainant after receiving the registration charges and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.2000/-. This appeal is filed questioning the order as erroneous both on question of fact and law and sought to be set aside.
The facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant booked two plots admeasuring 250 Sq,. yards each in East City project launched by the opposite party. The opposite party had allotted him membership Nos. 22905 and 21220 for the said plots. Complainant had paid all the installments in respect of those plots. Only registration charges of Rs.8000/- only in respect of plot No.3 was due which was confirmed by the OP in its letter dated 18.8.2006. The OP had revised the development charges from Rs.150/- to 175/- without showing any reason. The complainant paid development charges as revised by Opposite party @ 175/- per square yard. Even then, opposite party sent letters dated 18.4.2007 and 23.4.2007 demanding Addl. Amounts for revising the development charges so also registration charges. Later, OP addressed a letter dated 10.5.2007 informing that due to unavoidable circumstances sector V block AG cannot be registered and so another plot was allotted in VCAB6. It was done without any notice or consent. The act or omission of the OP amounts to deficiency and prayed to direct to execute sale deed and register it in respect of plots 3 and 4 as agreed and to declare that the demand made for additional amount towards Development charges is illegal and to order payment of compensation.
The Opposite party filed its version while admitting that the plots were allotted to the complainant it is stated that the cost of the plot was collected which is exclusive of development charges, registration and interest etc. on delayed payments. Terms and conditions were entered into between the parties. As per clause 6, development charges are to be paid by monthly installments when developmental work commences. Clause 4 lays down installments should be paid before 15th of every month. The basic land cost of the plot was Rs.33,750/- initially paid Rs.4,500/- for allotment of plot and the balance amount of Rs.29,250/- was paid at @ Rs.750/- per month commencing from July 1994 till September, 1997. In the month of March,1999 Civil works were commenced and complainant was requested to pay the development charges of Rs.37,500/- at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq. yard for 250 Sq.yards. upto March 2003 the complainant had not paid any monthly instalments. The cost of the labour and material increases so the development charges were increased by Rs.25/- per sq. yard. Unless the allottees cooperate with OP by paying the development charges it is not easy job to OP to complete the development work. The complainant is put to strict proof that he has booked another plot.
Ex.A.1 to A.12 and Ex.B.1 to B27 along with evidence affidavits were filed in respect of the complainant and opposite party respectively in support of their respective contentions.
After going through the evidence on record and the respective contentions of the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant had paid entire amount of the original plot i.e., plot no.4 and non registration of the said plot amounts to deficiency in service. With regard to plot no.3, which he got as a prize in the scheme offered by the OP and since he had already paid developmental charges as demand on 18.08.2006 it is not justified to make a further demand of enhanced rates of development charges. However, the registration charges as imposed by the Government to be paid by the complainant.
The strong hold contention raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal is that the District Forum failed to consider that the opposite party was continuously intimating and other allottees for payment of development charges form time to time is not essence when no time is stipulated for performance of contract especially where time is not the essence of the contract. So also when the buyer has not used any notice making time as essence for performance or in stead of rescinding the contract on the failure of non performance he accepts the delayed performance in terms of contract. In such case it does not amount to beach of contract for claiming any damages under general law of Contracts.
Point for consideration is, whether the impugned order suffers form factual and legal infirmity for its interference?
There is an unequivocal admission of the allotment of plot no.4 to the complainant and payment of its cost so also the development charges with regard to plot no.3 it was allotted to the complainant when he got prize in the lottery conducted under the scheme for which he agreed to pay development charges as per the terms so also agreed to pay enhanced rate @ 175/- per sq. yard. No doubt, it is true that the parties have not fixed the time for performance of contract and time is not essence of the contract yet the performance is to be made within a reasonable time. Right from 1994 till 2007, the opposite parties have not showed any progress in the development of the land except demanding payment for the development charges. Even though, the development charges have been revised the complainant had agreed to pay it with a hope that the two plots will be registered in his name. When the Ops have launched the scheme it is for them to take all the necessary steps that the layout permission is approved and the land is leveled by dividing into different plots. The Ops have not produced any documentary evidence to show when the authorities took the layout or when the land was divided into plots by producing necessary plans etc. There will be any amount of hardship and agony on the part of the members when the sale was not executed by registering it. In fact the stamp duty and Registration charges are to be borned out by purchasers themselves at the time of registration and it is not known how the opposite party was collecting the said charges in advance. Ex.A-11 dated 4.10.96 falsifies the stand taken by the opposite parties requiring the complainant to prove that he had booked two plots. When once the complainant got second plot as prize he is entitled for it and that is required to pay only developments charges. The evidence on record in crystal clear that the complainant had paid the development charges in respect of plot No.4 and that he has to pay balance of registration charges of rs.8,000/- only in respect of plot no.3. There is no justification for the OP to demand any further amounts on the pretext that the labour charges and material charges have increased. He is not justified in demanding revised development charges when the charges were revised which was paid. The District Forum after going through the entire evidence on record has rightly held that the OP had committed deficiency in service for not fulfilling its contractual obligation. It is seen that a compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded for mental agony seems to be high and excessive. In the absence of quantification it would be proper to reduce it to Rs.30,000/-.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order dated 07.11.2007 of the District Forum III, Hyderabad by reducing the compensation to Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-. Compliance is to be made within four weeks from the date of the order.
MEMBER
MEMBER
DATED: 13.08.2010
