BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 952 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.39 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM MAHAUBNAGAR
Between
Balamori Anjamma W/o Chinna Jengaiah
Aged 40 years, R/o Tharnikal Village
Kalwakurthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. V.Madhusudhan Reddy S/oJanga Reddy
aged 40 years, Occ: Realtor
2. P.J.Wilson S/o Jakraiah
aged about 42 years, Occ: Realtor
Both R/o Vidyanagar,
Kalwakurthy Village & Mandal
Mahabubnagar Dist.
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No. 954 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.41 OF 2007
Between
Venga Sherekha W/o Venkataiah Goud
Aged 19 years, R/o Dussakal Village,
Kalwakirthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. V.Madhusudhan Reddy S/oJanga Reddy
aged 40 years, Occ: Realtor
2. P.J.Wilson S/o Jakraiah
aged about 42 years, Occ: Realtor
Both R/o Vidyanagar,
Kalwakurthy Village & Mandal
Mahabubnagar Dist.
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No. 832 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.42 OF 2007
Between
Sanduri Santhoshi D/o Shashidhar Goud
Aged 20 years, R/o Tharnikal Village,
Kalwakurthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. V.Madhusudhan Reddy S/oJanga Reddy
aged 40 years, Occ: Realtor
2. P.J.Wilson S/o Jakraiah
aged about 42 years, Occ: Realtor
Both R/o Vidyanagar,
Kalwakurthy Village & Mandal
Mahabubnagar Dist.
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No. 833 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.38 OF 2007
Between
Thalla Raghavender Goud S/o Balaraja Goud
aged 19 years, R/o Tharnikal Village
Kalwakurthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. V.Madhusudhan Reddy S/oJanga Reddy
aged 40 years, Occ: Realtor
2. P.J.Wilson S/o Jakraiah
aged about 42 years, Occ: Realtor
Both R/o Vidyanagar,
Kalwakurthy Village & Mandal
Mahabubnagar Dist.
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No. 834 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.37 OF 2007
Between
Balmori Avanthi D/o Krishnaiah Goud
Aged 13 years, Minor, rep. by her father
and natural guardian, Krishnaiah Goud
S/o Satyanarayana Goud, aged 27 years
R/o Tharnikal Village, Kalwakurthy Mandal
Mahabubnagar Dist.
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. V.Madhusudhan Reddy S/oJanga Reddy
aged 40 years, Occ: Realtor
2. P.J.Wilson S/o Jakraiah
aged about 42 years, Occ: Realtor
Both R/o Vidyanagar,
Kalwakurthy Village & Mandal
Mahabubnagar Dist.
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No. 835 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.40 OF 2007
Between
Kotra Padma W/o Balraja Goud
Aged 29 years, R/o Tharnikal Village
Kalwakurthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. V.Madhusudhan Reddy S/oJanga Reddy
aged 40 years, Occ: Realtor
2. P.J.Wilson S/o Jakraiah
aged about 42 years, Occ: Realtor
Both R/o Vidyanagar,
Kalwakurthy Village & Mandal
Mahabubnagar Dist.
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents Sri V.Madhusudhan Reddy
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The appeals are being disposed of by a common order in view of the involvement of common question of fact and law. F.A.No.952 of 2008 is taken as the lead case.
The parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant joined as a member in the housing plot scheme, Margadarshi Real Estates” floated by the opposite parties in the land comprised in Sy.Nos.91 and 92 in the limits of grampanchayat, Kalwakurthy. The complainant paid all the instalments of the scheme. The opposite parties executed registered sale deed, document bearing No.984 of 1998 dated 21.4.1998 in favour of the complainant in respect of the allotted plot, plot bearing no.63 admeasuring 150 sq.yards at Balaramnagar locality of Kalwakurthy village. Thereafter, the complainant applied for permission on 20.1.2007 to construct a residential house and the grampanchayat refused to sanction permission for the reason that live electric wires were running through the locality.
The complainant got issued notice to the superintending engineer, AP TRANSCO, Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar on 28.2.2007 seeking the details of the time relating to the erection of high voltage electricity towers at the site. The S.E. replied on 22.3.2007 that the towers were erected in the month of June/July 1993. The copy of layout plan sanctioned by the Grampanchayat Kalwakurthy were furnished to the complainant. Possession of the plot was delivered by the opposite party. The complainant has got issued notice to the opposite parties on 23.5.2007 with a demand to allot and deliver possession of an undisputed plot. The opposite parties gave reply dated 15.6.2007 stating that the grampanchayat approved the layout and as such the question of rejection of application of the complainant for grant of permission for construction of houses in the locality does not arise.
In support of her case, the complainant has filed documents, Exs.A1 to A7. The opposite parties got marked the documents filed on their side as Exs.B1 to B5.
The District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that
1. The complainant in the complaint and in her affidavit has stated that the opposite parties had explained about the scheme and the existence of high voltage lines at some distance from the spot
2. After satisfying herself with the physical features of the location of the plot, the complainant purchased it.
3. The documents filed by the complainant show that the HT towers were in existence since 1993.
4. The plot was registered in the name of the complainant as per her choice in the year 1998.
5. The Grampanchayat Kalwakurthy has granted permission and approved the layout plan vide file no.438 of 1993 dated 18.4.1994.
6. The question of the opposite parties playing fraud on the complainant would arise only when the plot is not registered even after receipt of the entire amount under the scheme from the complainant.
7. At the time of taking possession of the plot, the complainant did not raise any objection.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has preferred the appeal on the following grounds.
1. The plot allotted by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant is not fit for habitation.
2. The Grampanchayat Kalwakurthy refused to sanction permission for construction of house in the plot on the premise that there is a big electric line passing over the plot.
3. The opposite parties have not denied in the reply notice of the existence of live wire running over the plot.
4. The allotted plot should be fit for construction of a house therein.
The points for consideration are:
1) Whether there was any deficient service rendered by the opposite parties in development and allotment of the plot?
2) Whether the complaint is filed within the period of limitation?
3) To what relief?
POINT NO.1 The complainant has applied for allotment of a plot in Sy.No.91 and 92 in the venture Margadarsi Real Estates floated by the opposite parties within the limits of Kalwakurthy Grampanchayat. The opposite parties allotted plot no.63 measuring 150 sq.yards at Balaramnagar in Kalwakurthy village. The opposite parties in pursuance of the terms of the scheme executed registered sale deed bearing document no.984 of 1998 dated 21.4.1998 enclosed therewith a proposal, in favour of the complainant. The allotment of the plot no.63 and execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant have been established which in fact are not disputed.
The contention of the complainant is that her application dated 20.1.2007 for construction of house in the plot purchased from the opposite parties was rejected by the grampanchayat Kalwakurthy on the premise that a live electric line was in existence at the locality which according to the complainant would show the sale of a defective plot without obtaining layout by the opposite parties. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had admitted that layout was obtained and after verification of the documents and physical inspection of the site, she opted for purchase of the plot and got the sale deed executed in her favour by making payment of the instalments in terms of the scheme. The complainant to contend that the electric line was passing through the land of which the plot no.63 allotted in her favour constitutes a part, relied upon the reply dated 22.3.2007 issued by the Superintending Engineer, APTRANSCO Mettuguda, Mahabugnagar in response to the notice she got issued on 28.2.2007. The Superintending Engineer in his reply has stated that the electric towers erected at the site in the month of June/July 1993. The fact of existence of electric towers and running of the live wires over the plot since the year 1993 has been established.
In view of the existence of electric towers and the live wires at the site, the complainant contends that the plot allotted to her by the opposite parties is not suitable for construction of house therein and it would be uninhabitable. The opposite parties refuted the charge on the ground that the complainant was explained about the existence of the electric towers at the site and with the knowledge of the existence of the live wires passing over the allotted plot, the complainant purchased the plot by way of making payment of the instalments amount and getting the sale deed executed in her favour in the year 1998. We see some force in the contention of the opposite parties as the complainant has made an unequivocal admission in the complaint and affidavit of her knowledge of existence of high voltage line at the site. In paragraph 3 of the complaint, the complainant has stated,
“it is submitted that the high voltage electric line was erected since long back in the area. The plots were in the open place at the time of registration. There were no nearby constructions. The opposite parties were fully explained and convinced the complainant to join in the scheme prior to the starting of it. The complainant expressed danger in the view of existing (sic, existence) of high voltage electric line from some distance. The opposite parties were clearly explained the existing of (sic, existence) high voltage line there and shown some distance from the towers. In layout there shown neighbouring plots and open place. After satisfaction of the complainant taken the said plot. The opposite parties were assured the safe of the complainant and shown reasonable distance from the said towers”
By her unequivocal admission of verification of the physical features of the plot allotted to her whereby she had gained the knowledge relating to the existence of the electric towers at the site, the complainant is not supposed to take a ‘U’ turn and contend that the oppose parties by selling the plot no.63 rendered deficient service. It is not the case of the complainant that she had not verified the physical features of the plot nor was she ignorant of the existence of the electric towers at the site. With the knowledge of the existence of live electric wires passing over the plot allotted to her the complainant purchased the plot no.63 from the opposite party. The registered sale deed, even according to the complainant contains the descriptive boundaries of the allotted plot with a layout enclosed thereto. The opposite parties had drawn attention of this commission to the admission of the complainant that the complainant had satisfied with the physical features of the plot and the layout thereof before proceeding for getting the sale deed executed in her favour by the opposite parties. It is true, the complainant has specifically stated that she was satisfied herself with the location of the plot and the surroundings which include the existence of electric towers at the site and passing of live wires over the allotted plot. In the circumstances, the complainant is estopped from taking a course in deviation of her earlier statement in regard to her acquisance of evidence of electric towers in the vicinity of the allotted plot.
POINT NO.2 Admittedly, the opposite parties executed registered sale deed in favour of the complainant on 21.4.1998 in respect of the plot no.63 allotted in favour of the complainant. The complainant has made physical inspection of the plot prior to or at the time of execution of the registered sale deed in her favour by the opposite parties. Therefore, the cause of action for the complainant to file the complaint would be the date of execution of the registered sale deed and as such the complaint has to be filed within two years therefrom. The complainant had leisurely approached the grampanchayat on 29.2.2007 i.e., about nine years after her purchase of the plot from the opposite parties which by any means can not be said to be reasonable. In terms of Sec.24-A of the Consumer Protection Act the complaint has to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the legislature had cast duty on the consumer forum to verify whether the complaint is filed within the period of two years as prescribed by Sec.24-A of the C.P.Act. (State Bank of India Vs. B.S.Agricultural Industries reported in 2009 (3) CPR 784 (SC))
Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of complaint by the Consumer Fora thus:
24A. Limitation period. - (l) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is preemptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action”
The complaint is not filed within the period of limitation of two years from the date of execution of the registered sale deed. The point is answered against the complainant.
POINT NO.3 In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the District Forum. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
The appeals F.A.Nos.954 of 2008, F.A.No.832 of 2009, F.A.No.833 of 2009, F.A.No.834 of 2009 and F.A.No.835 of 2009 are also dismissed. No costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.28.09.2010
KMK*
