BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD
F.A.No.125/2008 against C.C.No.88/2007, Dist. Forum,Kadapa.
Between:
Kakulam Raghunatha Reddy,
S/o.Sahadeva Reddy, aged about 65 years,
Indian , Occ: Advocate, R/o.Door no.401,
Vandana Enclave, Co-operative Colony,
Kadapa, Kadapa District. …Appellant/
Complainant
And
Y.Ramachandraiah,
S/o.Chengaiah,
Hindu, aged about 57 years,
Occ:Agriculture Officer,
President NGO’s Co-operative
House Building Society,
Rayachoty , Kadapa District. …Respondent/
Opp.party.
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s.V..Gowri Sankar Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. B.Viswanatha Reddy
CORAM:HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
AND
SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order :(Per Smt. M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
****
Aggrieved by the order in CC.No.88/2007 on the file of District Forum, Kadapa , the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant was a member of NGO’s Co-operative House Building Society, Rayachoty since 1981 and the said Society allotted plot no.122 to him and collected incidental and development charges. The opposite party sent notice to the complainant on 20.6.1993 and 10.11.93 demanding to pay Rs.8,000/- towards the cost of the plot in instalments. The complainant paid Rs.4000/- on 6.12.93 to the Society and later the opposite party refused to receive the balance amount and the Society sold away the plot which was allotted to the complainant to a non member of the Society by R.Jayamma under registered sale deed. The complainant filed a petition U/s.61(B) of A.P.C.S.Act, 1964 before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kadapa on 15.2.2000 praying for cancellation of earlier registered sale deed in favour of R.Jayamma and to direct the opp.party to register the said plot in his favour and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kadapa in the Award no.2/99-2000 dt.15.6.2000 directed the opposite party to register the said plot in favour of the complainant. The complainant submits that in obedience to the award of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kadapa he paid Rs.4,000/- on 26.7.2000 to the Society and the Society received the said sum and informed the complainant through their letter dt.3.3.2001 that the complainant has to pay interest on the said amount @ 15% from 30th April 1993 till 25th July 2000 and also informed to make required arrangements in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Rayachoty for registration of the said plot in his favour. The complainant paid Rs.4,340/- towards said interest, but the opp.party refused to register the said plot in his favour. The complainant filed Execution Petition no.6/2002 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty under order 21 rule 34 of C.P.C. and the said Court directed the opp.party to execute the registered sale deed in favour fo the complainant within 15 days from the date of order, but the opp.party disobeyed the said order . The complainant filed E.P.No.177/2004 U/O. 21 R.34 of C.P.C before the same Court and the said petition was allowed on 29.6.2006 and aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party filed C.R.P.No.4129/06 in A.P.High Court to set aside the order in E.P.No.177/04 and he filed appeal CTA SR. No.2950/06 in A.P.Cooperative Tribunal , Hyderabad against the award AR.No.2/99-2000 of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies , Kadapa and he filed I.A.No.591/2006 for condonation of delay of 2181 days in filing appeal CTA Sr.No.2950/2006. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the CRP and A.P.Cooperative Tribunal Hyderabad also dismissed I.A.No.591/06 and the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty got registered the plot no.122 in favour of the complainant on 29.3.2007 U/O.21 R.34 of C.P.C. as the opposite party did not obey the orders of the Court and execute the document. The complainant submits that the opposite party subjected the him to extreme mental torture and humiliation by refusing to receive the balance consideration of the plot and by refusing to register the plot in his favour even after receiving the entire consideration along with interest and the opp.party resorted to fraud and cheating and violated the bye laws of the N.G.Os Cooperative House Building Society, Rayachoty and failed to provide service to the complainant without registering the plot . The complainant submits that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.4,95,000/- to get over the legal hurdles created by the opp.party from the year 1993 to 2007. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached District Forum to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.4,95,000/- towards expenses and compensation.
The opposite party filed counter stating that the complainant was not a non gazetted officer and he joined in the Society in the year 1981 when he was a gazetted lecturer and was allotted plot no.122 of Society and the complainant with the connivance of his brother got executed a registered sale deed in favour of R.Jayamma and knowing the facts fully the complainant has filed petition before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kadapa against the opposite party Society The opposite party submits that if really the complainant sustained damages by preferring the appeal before the appellate Court he has to file separate civil suit and the complainant is not a consumer and the provisions of C.P.Act are not applicable and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and seeks for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A8 and pleadings put forward the District Forum dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/-payable by the complainant to the opp.party within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
It is the complainant’s case that he joined as a Member of NGO’s Co-operative House Building Society in the year 1981 while he was working as Gazetted Lecturer though the Society was for non Gazetted Officers. It is not in dispute that the complainant was allotted plot no.122 and he paid incidental and developmental charges as demanded by the opposite party toward the cost of the plot. It is also not in dispute that the Society registered the sale deed of the same plot in favour of one R.Jayamma. The complainant filed a petition before the Deputy Registrar for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of Smt.R.jayamma and the Deputy Registrar has passed an award on 15.6.2000 cancelling the registration of the plot in favour of Smt.R.Jayamma and directed the opposite party to register the same plot in favour of the complainant. This is evidenced under Ex.A1. It is the further case of the complainant that the opposite party did not comply with this order and the complainant filed E.P.6/2002 against the opposite party before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty who passed an order on 14.8.2002 directing the opposite party to implement the order within 15 days ( evidenced under Ex.A2). The complainant filed E.P.No.177/ 2004 which was allowed without costs directing the complainant to file his draft sale deed by 5.7.2006 (Ex . A3) and opposite party preferred an appeal against this order in I.A.No.591/2006 to condone 2181 days delay in preferring the appeal which was dismissed (Ex.A4). The opposite party Society preferred CRP.No.4129/06 against the orders in E.P.177/2004 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. and this was dismissed without costs on 24.11.2006. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty executed registered sale deed in favour of the present complainant on 29.3.2007 for the same plot no. 122 (Ex.A6). It is the complainant’s case that he incurred expenditure of Rs.67,000/- towards the legal services, Rs.1,35,000/- towards the expenditure for various litigations and Rs.2,93,000/- towards mental agony. We observe from the record that in all the proceedings and the awards passed from Deputy Registrar orders till the orders of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., costs were not awarded at any stage. The complainant also did not prefer any appeal with regard to the costs at the appropriate Court of Law. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. did not allow costs in CRP. 4129/06 and the complainant is not entitled to claim costs. But the District Forum has dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/- which we are of the considered view can be set aside keeping in view the principles of natural justice and also that the prayer of the complainant cannot be strictly construed to be vexatious or mischievous one. Therefore though we are of the view that the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint awarding of costs of Rs.10,000/- is unjustified and we set aside the same.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum with respect to costs only and we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum.
Sd./PRESIDENT
Sd./MEMBER
