BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
EA 36 of 2012 in CD 131 of 1991
Between:
Bandaru Goutham
S/o Late B. Joga Rao, aged about : 60 years
Occ: Retd. Indian Bank Employee,
Old Address Residing at R/o Balanagar, Hyderabad
Present address residing at
R/o B-512, Meghadri Heights, Yapral
Secunderabad .. Petitioner/complainant
And
- M/s. Baba Constructions
Old Address Residing at R/o d. No. 6-1-329,
Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad – 500 025
Rep. by its promoter Salike Satya Murthy
S/o Late Srihari, aged about : 62 years, Occ : Business
- Salike Sathya Murthy, S/o late Salike Srihari,
Aged about 62 years, occ : Business
Old Address Residing at R/o H. No. 6-1-329,
Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad – 500 025
- The Assistant Engineer, Electricity Distribution,
Zone I, APSEB, Balanagar, Hyderabad – 500 042.
- Mr. Salike Hemalatha,
W/o Salike Sastya Murthy, aged about not knonw
Old address Residing at R/o Unit A1, Baba Apartments
Padmarao nagar, Secunderabad
All No. 1,2 & 4 are R/o Unit A1, Baba Apartments,
Padmarao nagar, Secunderabad – 25. Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. Ch. Sudhakar Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : R2 Party in person rep. R1 and R3.
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
AND
SRI R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order : ( As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao , Hon’ble Member )
1 The petition is filed U/s. 27 of Consumer Protection Act praying for punishment of the respondent on the premise of violation of the order of this Commission and the petitioner has sought for direction to the respondents to execute sale deed in respect of flat no. F-4, Block –II, Baba apartments, Vinayak nagar Balanagar, Hyderabad.
2. The respondents claim on the premise that the petitioner has not paid the amount of Rs.1,99,823/- in compliance of the order of this Commission and there has been no willful disobedience on their part to comply with the order passed by this Commission. The respondents sought for dismissal of the petition.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 filed written submissions.
4. The point for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for ?
5. The case has chequered carrier. The petitioner has filed complaint seeking for direction to the respondent to execute registered sale deed in respect of the flat under purchase from the respondents. This Commission had passed order on 25.01.2001 for registration of the sale deed by the respondents and payment of balance sale consideration by the petitioner. This Commission has passed the following order :
“ it is the case of the opposite party that the complainants have not even paid the full amount of Rs.1,53,000/- which was agreed under the second agreement. If that is the case the sum (balance payable) shall be paid with interest at 18% to the opposite party within a period of two months from today. Regarding the issue of occupancy certificates no doubt the complainants have occupied the flats even before they are completed and before their possession was handed over. However, the opposite party is duty bound to issue occupancy certificates which will enable them to obtain public utility facilities such as ration cards etc. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the opposite party to issue occupancy certificates to all the complainants within two months from today. It is made clear that both parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court in respect of those claims which are not decided in the order “
6. The respondents challenged the order by filing appeal before the National Commission and the National Commission has dismissed the Appeal FA No. 89 of 2001. The respondents preferred appeal, civil appeal no. 8802 of 2003 against the order of the National Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by Judgment dated 10.11.2013 upheld the order of this Commission in so far as the relief for execution of the sale deed is concerned and remanded the matter to decide the other aspects. The order reads as under :
“ without expressing anything on the merits of the respective contentions with regard o the inter-se liability in terms of money, we dispose of this appeal by directing the State Consumer disputes Redressal Commission to decide the remaining controversy, for which it gave liberty to both the parties to approach the Civil Court . We however, make it clear that the impugned order in all other respects remain undisturbed, except to the extent remanded “.
7. After the matter was remanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Commission has passed the order dated 24.5.2005 directing the respondents/opposite parties to execute the registered sale deed as per order dated 25.01.2001.
8. The respondents carried the matter in revision, R.P.No.2011 of 2004 and the National Commission by its order dated 04.03.32005 revised the order of this Commission and directed the petitioner to pay balance amount within three weeks from the date of the order and deposit of the balance amount by the petitioner was made condition precedent for execution of sale deed by the respondents. The National Commission upheld the liability of the petitioner to pay interest on the balance amount. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
“Respondent will deposit the balance amount with the State Commission within three weeks. Sale deed will be executed and registered thereafter as per the order dated 25.01.2001 by the opposite parties 2 to 4”.
9. The National Commission in the aforementioned order clarified that the Supreme Court has not disturbed the relief as to liability of the petitioner to pay interest in favour of the respondents and it held that that the liability of the petitioner to pay interest @18% would subsist. The National Commission thus observed :
“In regard to liability of interest, said order dated 25.01.2001 notices that in casefull amount of Rs.1,53,000/- which was agreed under the second agreement was not paid, the balance with interest @ 18% will be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of order. Against this part of order, the respondent admittedly had not filed any appeal before this Commission. In aforesaid orde dated 10.11.2003, the Apex Court has clarified that the order dated 20.12.2002 passed by this Commission in appeals filed by the petitioner in all other respects would remain undisturbed meaning thereby that liability for payment of interest @18% p.a. on the balance amount, if any subsists.
10. Not satisfied with the relief awarded by the National Commission, the respondents filed SLP No.11444 of 2005 which the Supreme Court was disposed by the following order :
“It appears that there is a dispute between the parties about certain monetary claims made by each party against the other. The respondent who is appearing in person before us submits that he had moved the State Commission for certain clarifications in this behalf. Let the State Commission look into all the aspects and in the light of the order of the National Commission, pass appropriate orders”.
11. Thereafter, this Commission passed the order dated 09.06.2006 whereby this Commission directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- and on payment of the aforesaid amount, the respondents were directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The respondents challenged the order dated 09.06.2006 of this Commission by filing revision, R.P.No. 1753 of 2006. The National Commission allowed the revision by order dated 02.07.2007 and modified the order of this Commission by directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.15,467/- and within three weeks therefrom , the respondents to execute sale deed. The National Commission held that the respondents are not entitled to interest on the balance amount payable by the petitioner. The National Commission thus held :
“Aforesaid order dated 25.01.001which has attained finality. Notices that the respondents claim on the said count was rejected by the State Commission for want of evidence. That being so, the respondent cannot be permitted to raise it in this revision. In our view, respondent is liable to pay the said amount of Rs.33,169/- towards extra work done minus Rs.4140/-being the value of material supplied by him and Rs.3,562/- being the amount paid through Baba Apartments Welfare Association which comes to Rs.25,467/- as a condition for execution and registration of the sale deed in respect of flat no. F-4 by opposite parties 2 & 4. Considering the order dated 25.01.01 as also the facts and circumstances of the case petitioner is not entitled to any interest. Impugned order, ;thus, deserves to be modified to that extent”.
12. The respondents filed review of the order dated 02.07.2007 by filing M.A.No.664 of 2007 and the National Commission dismissed the petition on 23.11.2007. The respondents challenged the order dated 02.07.2007 by filing SLP No.2449v of 2008 and SLP was also dismissed.
13. As the things stood thus, the National Commission declined to extend time for the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.25,467/-. The National Commission dismissed M.A.No. 129 of 2008 in R.P.No. 1753 of 2006 and the Supreme Court converted SLP No.18123 of 2009 into C.A.No. 294 of 2011 and allowed the appeal on 10.01.2011. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
“In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the National Commission is set aside. The appellant is granted four weeks time from today for making payment in terms of the order passed by the National Commission. Once the amount is paid by the appellant, the respondent shall execute the sale deed and get the same registered within next six weeks”.
14. In compliance of the order, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.5,467/- through Banker’s cheque dated 19.01.2011. In total the Petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.25,467/-on different dates mentioned below :
i) Rs.10,000/- Bankers Cheque No.204312 dt.28.12.1999.
ii) Rs.10,000/- Bankers Cheque No.131513 dt.12.07.2006 III) Rs.05,467/- Bankers Cheque No.048634 dt.19.01.2011.
15. The petitioner has deposited the entire amount of Rs.25,467/- in terms of the order of the National Commission and as such the obligation to comply the other part of the order as to execution of the sale deed would rest on the respondents who are laboring under the impression that they are entitled to interest on the amount deposited by the petitioner which infact was declined by the National Commission and the Supreme Court.
16. Taking the totality of circumstances of the case, we are inclined to direct the respondents to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Failing which the respondents are liable to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- towards fine.
17. In the result, the petition is allowed directing the respondents to comply with the order dated 25.01.2001 of this Commission by executing registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of flat no. F-4, Block –II, Baba apartments, Vinayak nagar Balanagar, Hyderabad within one month from the date of this order. The respondents shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand only ) towards fine to the petitioner. The parties shall bear their own costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
DATED : 07.07.2014.
