BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
C.C.No.33 of 2007
Between:
Balireddy Sudhakar
S/o.B.S.Narayana,
Aged about 56 years,
Indian, Occ:Private Service,
Flat No.301, Geetanjali Apartments
Kirlampudi Layout,
Visakhapatnam. ..Complainant
And
1. M/s.Classic Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,
Classic complex,
D.No.28-21-1/9 & 1/10,
Prakasaraopeta,
Visakhapatnam-530 002
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Sri Jasti Vijaya Shankar.
2. M/s.Classic Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,
Classic complex,
D.No.28-21-1/9 & 1/10,
Prakasaraopeta,
Visakhapatnam-530 002
Rep. by its authorized agent
Sri M.S.N.Patrudu. ..Opp.parties.
3. Sri Jasti Vijay Shankar,
S/o.Krishnaji Rao,
Aged about 54 years,
Occ:Real Estate & Construction Business,
R/o.Sri Sai Keerthana, 56 Ocean Drive,
Near Sagarnagar
Visakhapatnam-530 043.
4. Smt.Jasti Vani, W/o.Sri Jasti Vijaya Shankar,
Aged about 50 years,
Occ:Real Estate & Construction Business,
R/o.Sri Sai Keerthana, 56 Ocean Drive,
Near Sagarnagar
Visakhapatnam-530 043.
5. Sri Vasireddy Sri Krishna, S/o.Venkaiah,
Aged about 50 years, Indian,
Occ:Business,
R/oD.No.5-9-22/87,
Adarshnagar,
Hyderabad.
6. Sri M.Siva Narayana Patrudu (MSN Patrudu)
S/o.MLN Patrudu
Aged about 38 years, Indian,
R/o.Flat No.C-2, Nightangles Nestle,
Adityanagar, Visakhapatnam. Opp.parties 3 to 6.
(O.Ps 3 to 6 impleaded as per order dt.28-1-2009 in
C.C.IA.No.2397/2008)
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Opposite parties: Mr.G.Ramagopal-O.P.1
Mr.G.Vijaya Babu-O.P.2
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that opposite party No.1 is a private limited company doing business in real estate at Visakhapatnam represented by opposite parties 1 and 2, who developed a layout under the name and style of “Aiswarya Garden” abutting Adibatla nagar, Vuda layout opposite to Karthika Vanam, Beach Road, Visakhapatnam. Opposite parties represented that they obtained BLP No.22/98 and the complainant being induced by the representation of opposite party No.1 purchased plot Nos.23 and 24 admeasuring 350 sq. yds. each @ Rs.1280/- per sq. yd. Out of the total consideration of Rs.8,96,000/- the complainant paid Rs.8,50,000/- as per the instructions of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2, by way of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- on 26/9/2002 for which opposite party No.2 gave an acknowledgement as advance for plot Nos. 23 and 24 and on 10-10-2002 by way of cheque bearing No.762094 for Rs.5,00,000/- which was encashed on the same day. Another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by complainant to opposite party No.2 by way of cheque bearing No.206027 and the same was also encashed on 10-10-2002. The complainant submitted that he visited the opposite parties on several occasions requesting opposite party No.1 for execution of the sale deeds after getting final approvals from VUDA and opposite party no.1 postponed the registration of the plots on one pretext or the other. The complainant having learnt that the opposite parties got approval from VUDA once again approached opposite party No.1 with the balance amount of Rs.46,000/- for execution of sale deeds and he informed that the GPA holder is out of station and as he comes from USA, the plots will be registered. The complainant submitted that since the opposite parties are causing abnormal delay in executing the sale deeds, he got issued a legal notice on 14-9-2005 demanding opposite party No.1 to execute the sale deeds but the same was returned as ‘un-claimed’. The complainant further submitted that opposite party no.2 furnished a LP certificate of Aiswarya Gardens (layout in S.Nos.98/P and 99/P of Yendada Village Cheena Gadili Mandal belonging to J.Vijayashankar, GPA holder vide LP No.65/2004) stating that the plots can be registered in favour of the complainant. It was also informed by opposite party No.2 that opposite party No.1 would be shifting his business to Hyderabad, Bangalore and Madras and may not be available at Visakhapatnam and requested the complainant to follow up for registration of the plots. The complainant submitted that he learnt that J.Vijay Shankar would be leaving to U.S.A. and as such he sent representation on 21-8-2006 demanding him to register the plot Nos.23 and 24 but the same were returned as “Refused to take”. The complainant vexed with the indifferent attitude of opposite party No.1 on 26-8-2006 lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam and as there was no action submitted a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh on 20-9-2006 to take action and also submitted various representations to Hon’ble Chief Minister, Governor of A.P. Home Minister and other higher police officials and the police officials except referring the matter to local Task Force officials of MVP colony, Visakhapatnam no action was taken against the opposite parties.
It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have not yet sold plot Nos. 23 and 24 as per the encumbrance certificate dt.24-8-2006 issued by the Sub Registrar, Madurawada. The complainant submitted that he paid Rs.8,50,000/- to the opposite parties as against Rs.8,96,000/- during October, 2002 and they have been enjoying the same without executing the sale deeds. He further submitted that the land cost in and around Visakhapatnam increased in several folds and the present Govt. rate is Rs.3,800/- per sq. yd in the said survey numbers as against Rs.500/- during 21002 and as per the valuation certificate issued by the Sub Registrar, Madurawada the total value of 700 sq. yds. is mentioned at Rs.26,60,000/- and the registration charges is payable at Rs.2,52,700/-. He further submitted that the actual market rate is Rs.23,000/- per sq. yds. and if the actual market rate is taken into consideration, the market value of the plots 23 and 24 would be ore than Rs. One crore and the opposite parties are bound to bear the escalation in the registration of the plots. He submitted that the action of the opposite parties in not registering the plots inspite of receiving the amounts long time ago not only amounts to deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice and he could not complete any construction due to non registration of the plots by the opposite parties. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to register plot Nos. 23 and 24 in Aiswarya Gardens in Sy. No.98/P and 99/P at Yendada Village, China Gadila Mandal Visakhapatnam by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.46,000/- or in the alternative to allot any other plot/plots admeasuring 700 sq. yds. in Aiswarya Gardens or in other ventures to bear the escalation in stamp duty and registration charges and to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and costs of Rs.25,000/-.
Opposite party No.1 filed a preliminary counter submitting that the description of the opposite parties as set out in the cause title is hopelessly false, incorrect and hence the C.C. is not maintainable. He submitted that the persons described by the complainant representing opposite party No.1 has nothing to do with the “Corporate body” and the certified copies of forms 32 under the Companies Act reveal the present and past members of the management in control of opposite party No.1 Corporate Body and prayed for dismissal of the complaint as vexatious.
Opposite party no.1 also filed counter contending that he was shown as representative Managing Director of opposite party No.1 in the C.C and notice was issued to him rather than the actual Corporate body and preferred the complaint against them in confusion showing them as representatives in persons and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. He submitted neither he nor Mr.M.S.N.Patrudu (Siva) is an authorized agent of the company, M/s.Classic Constructions Private Limited and having nothing to do with the said Corporate body and they are not concerned with the layout referred to i.e. “Aiswarya Gardens” and obtained BLP of 1998. He denied the allegation that he instructed Mr.M.S.N.Patrudu to receive either cash or otherwise to acknowledge any amount concerning any purchase of land much less the alleged plot Nos. 23 and 24 of the alleged lay out. He also denied the allegation that the complainant visited them on several occasions for obtaining the lay out permission from VUDA and for taking the balance amount of Rs.46,000/- for the purpose of execution of sale deeds.
Opposite party no.1 submitted that the complainant is a petition monger and had made similar attempts before the District Magistrate marking copies to all and any notice returned with postal endorsement ‘un-claimed’ is not a proper service. He submitted that he nor Mr.M.S.N.Patrudu are any way connected with the ownership or financial matters of the Venture “Aiswarya Gardens” and submitted that the complainant is a vexatious litigant and lodges false complaints for extortion of moneys from the people of credibility in the society. He also submitted that the question of laying out “Taraka Rama” and “Aiswarya Gardens” and selling them for Rs.23,000/- per sq. yd. does not arise and the same is not germane to the facts besides referred to only with a view to malign and gain mis-placed sympathies for him. He further submitted that it is false to allege that he or Mr.M.S.N.Patrudu sold plots much less Classic Constructions, a Corporate body and if the complainant wants specific performance of any agreement of sale, he has to approach a competent civil court U/s.15 and 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1961. He lastly submitted that the cause of action is traceable on 10-10-2002 as the alleged last paid money was on 14-9-2002 and for lodging a complaint two years period is available and in the complaint the notice was dispatched on 20-9-2007 and hence the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite party No.5 representing opposite parties 3,4 and 6 filed counter contending that the grievances projected by the complainant are gross mis-representation of the facts and a dubious fraudulent attempt fascinatingly tampering with the public record and thereby was constrained to present a questionnaire in as much as the answers furnished by the competent authority and Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act concerning Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and the copy of the same is filed to unravel the fraud of the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant’s case right from the beginning was against “Classic Constructions Private Limited only one Corporate Body split into two parts represented by two different unconnected individuals and not the case filed against either opposite party 3 or opposite party No.6 in their individual capacities right from the beginning and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as vexatious. He submitted that the name of the first and second opposite parties was also wrongly described in as much as not adding “Private Limited” to the words “Classic Constructions” and it shows that it was a manipulated interpolation hurriedly carried out during the curse of the access to the official record granted to him under the Right to Information Act and the authorities are also contemplating to initiate prosecution proceedings against him for having tampered the record in the guise of ‘access” granted to him under the Right to Information Act and hence further looking into the material relied by the complainant and fraudulently obtained by him does not arise. He requested this Commission U/s.27 of the Central Act 68 of 1986 for having interfered with the course of judicial proceedings and tampering with the official record and presented the said manipulated and tampered record as a proper record one again traceable to the provisions contained in Section 195 of Cr.PC. ascribed in the provisions contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. empowering this Commission to initiate necessary proceedings.
Opposite party No.5 submitted that he is no way connected or concerned with any transaction and the complainant failed to establish his involvement anywhere in the complaint originally presented against opposite parties 1 and 2. He further submitted that in the absence of any allegation making them as parties is vexatious. He submitted that he approached the police to know the details of the complaint alleged to have been lodged by the complainant against respondent No.3 and 6 and found a xerox copy of the receipt allegedly to have been issued by respondent No.6 and submitted that it was manipulated and requested this Commission that the complainant may be directed to file the original receipt and the same shall be subjected to comparison and scrutiny. He submitted that the complainant has carefully manipulated the record right from the beginning in order to gain undue advantage with a sole aim of putting pressure on respondents 3 and 6 by dragging the feet of respondent No.4 and 5 in the implead application much to the charging of truth in the teeth of limitation prescribed under the Central Act 68 of 1986 governing the case. He further submitted that as on the date of filing the implead application the cause of action narrated in the complaint stood exhausted and had cross the stipulated limitation and that thus the complaint as against these opposite parties deserved to be rejected as barred by limitation. He further adopted the counter filed by opposite party No.1 in all other respects and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In support of his case, the complainant filed his affidavit denying the allegations made by opposite party No.1 in his counter and opposite parties 3 to 6 and submitted that opposite party No.1 is a Private Limited company and opposite party no.3 is the Managing Director whereas opposite party No.6 is authorized agent and opposite party no.4 is wife of opposite party No.3 and opposite parties to 5 are the owners of the land. The opposite parties developed a layout under the name and style of “Aiswarya Gardens” abutting Adibatla Nagar, VUDA layout, Opposite Kartika Vanam, beach Road, Visakhapatnam and represented to the complainant that they obtained BLP 22/98 and induced by that the complainant purchased plot Nos. 23 and 24 admeasuring 350 sq. yds. each @ Rs.1.280/- per sq. yd and the total sale consideration was Rs.8,96,000/- out of which he paid Rs.8,50,000/- as stated in the complaint and as the opposite parties failed to register the plots, he filed the complaint.
The complainant submitted in his affidavit that under Right to Information Act, on 9-9-2008 he obtained various documents from VUDA and on 17-9-2008 obtained certain documents from the Commissioner of Police Visakhapatnam pertaining to the title of the land, approvals granted by the Gram Panchayat and VUDA. The proceedings of the VUDA in RC No.160/96 dt.7-10-1998 reveal that J.Vijaya Shankar (O.P.3) submitted his application on 23-8-1996 to VUDA for approval of layout in S.No.98 and 99 of Yendada Village over an extent of Ac.9,80 and basing his further application dt.6-10-1998 VUDA granted BLP 22/98. On 04-11-2002 the District Collector granted permission to Mr.J.Vijaya Shankar for layout the road on Government land admeasuring 6 cents in order to construct culverts and to connect internal road to his private layout. On 24-12-2003, opposite party No.3 requested VUDA for extension of time for development of the layout granted under BLP No.22/98. On 23-8-2004 Gram Panchayat, Yendada recommended to VUDA for grant of final lay out and on 27-12-2004 VUDA released the final layout in LP No.65/04 in favour of opposite parties 3 to 5. On 28-10-2004 opposite party No.3 submitted representation to VUDA representing M/s.Classic Constructions Ltd., (O.Ps.1 and 2) and all the above proceedings reveal that J.Vijaya Shankar, J.Vani and V.S.Krishna (O.P.3 to 5) got approval for Aiswarya Gardens in LP No.65/04 from VUDA.
He further submitted that on 17-9-2008, the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam furnished certain documents under RTI Act. In the statement dt.19-10-06 given to the police, Sri J.Vijaya Shankar admitted about the development of the lay out and entering into an oral agreement with me for the sale of 700 sq. yds. in Aishwarya Gardens and that he received Rs.2,00,000/-. The statement of Sri MSN Patrudu also reveals that he was working as an assistant with opposite party and they offered 700 sq. yds. and that they received Rs.2,00,000/- and the other documents furnished by the police authorities reveal that the opposite parties booked two plots, received part of sale consideration and failed to execute the plots in his favour. The complainant submitted that he learnt that plot Nos. 23 and 24 in “Aiswarya Gardens” which he claimed in the complaint have already been sold away by Smt.Koduru Vasantha through her GPA holder on 29-5-2996 in favour of one Sri Balaji Bakthavachlam, and in view of the changed circumstances, he submitted that opposite parties are bound to allot any other plot of 700 sq. yds. He further submitted that one Mr.Jasti Vijaya Shankar filed counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.1 denying the averments and he submitted that how J.Vijaya Shankar received notice issued by this Commission to M/s.Classic Constructions in the main complaint and filed counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.1 if he was no way connected with the said company in one capacity or the other. He submitted that document No.13 filed along with additional material papers reveal that opposite party No.3 submitted a representation on behalf of Classic Constructions to VUDA stating that the layout was not fully developed and requested to release LP and document No.9 copy of the layout of Aiswarya Gardens filed along with the additional material papers contain the signatures of opposite parties 3 to 5 and thus it is absolutely false and incorrect to state that opposite party No.3 has nothing to do with M/s.Classic constructions Pvt. Ltd.,
He denied the allegation that he has tampered the public document by gaining access with the authorities of VUDA under RTI Act and submitted that failure to register the plot and deliver possession and/or refund of the sale consideration amounts to continuous cause of action and as such the complaint is not barred by limitation. He submitted that opposite parties have mentioned the description of opposite parties 1 and 2 as “Classic Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,” and “Classic Constructions” at different places to suit their needs. He submitted that they never indulged in any act of filing manipulated records. He submitted that Vasireddy Sri Krisha, Jasti Vijaya Shankar and his wife Smt.Jasti Vani have executed the gift deed on 19-8-2004 in favour of Village Secretary and thus it is incorrect to state that opposite party no.5 is no way connected with the lay out and execution of gift deed dated 19-8-2004 was never denied by opposite parties 3 to 6. He denied the allegation that his is a vexatious complaint and submitted that he paid his hard earned money of Rs.8,50,000/- and therefore he is liable to file complaints and further submitted that the opposite party No.5 is liable for action for employing defamatory language. He further submitted that opposite party No.5 has not filed his individual written version or affidavit denying any of the allegations and opposite party No.5 has also not filed any authorization given by opposite party no.6 and drew our attention to the statement of opposite party No.6 dt.15-10-2006 given to Task Force Authorities Visakhapatnam. He further submitted that on 21-1-2006 on behalf of opposite party No.1, form 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad was filed to show that opposite party No.3 and 6 have nothing to do with “M/s.Classic Constructions Pvt. Ltd,”. From the above form 32, it is clear that M/s.Classique constructions Private Limited” is a totally different legal entity with that of opposite party No.1 i.e. M/s.Classic Constructions Pvt. Ltd., and opposite party no.1 without specifying the difference in the name of opposite party no.1 and Classique Constructions Pvt. Ltd., only to mislead this Commission filed Form 32 of the later company and hence prayed to allow the complaint by directing opposite parties to allot plot Nos.23 and 24 in Aiswarya Gardens or any other plot admeasuring 700 sq. yds. in Aiswarya Gardens and bear the escalation in the stamp duty and registration charges together with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and costs of Rs.25,000/- and got marked Exs.A1 to A17 initially and filed additional documents which are marked as Exs.A18 to A37.
Ex.A1 is the original receipt for Rs.2,00,000/- dated 26-9-2002. Ex.A2 is the copy of lay out plan. Ex.A3 is the copy of legal notice dated 14-9-2005. Ex.A4 is the postal receipt. Ex.A5 is the representation dated 21-8-2006. Ex.A6 is the representations dated 26-8-2006 submitted to Commissioner of Police Ex.A7 and A8 are the representations dated 20-9-2006, dated nil submitted to C.M. respectively. Exs.A9, A10, A11 are the representations dated nil, 10-12-2006, 9-10-2006 submitted to Commissioner of Police. Exs.A12 and A13 are representations by fax dated 7-10-2006 and 23-9-2006. Ex.A14 is the representation dated 27-10-2006 to S.I. Ex.A15 is the Bank statement. Ex.A16 is the E.C. dated 24-8-2006. Ex.A17 is the Market value certificate dated 24-4-2007. Ex.A18 is the copy of letter by complainant to VUDA dated 9-9-2009. Ex.A19 is the Proceedings of VUDA dated 27-12-2004. Ex.A20 is the VUDA RC.No.6810/04/APO/CDC/ML dt.27-12-2004. Ex.A21 is the VUDA letter dt.27-12-2004. Ex.A22 is l the etter dt.28-10-2004 of J.Vijaya Shankar to VUDA. Ex.A23 is the letter from Gram Panchayat of Yendada dated 23-8-2004. Ex.A24 is the letter of J.V.Shankar and others. Ex.A25 is the Gift deed dated 19-8-2004. Ex.A26 is the layout plan. Ex.A27 is the Certificate of APEPDCL., Ex.A28 is the IOB Challan dated 9-6-2004. Ex.A29 is the letter dated 9-6-2004 of J.V.Shankar. Ex.A30 is the letter of J.V.Shankar to VUDA. Ex.A31 is the VUDA letter dt.20-1-2004. Ex.A32 is the representation dt.24-12-2003 of J.V.Shankar. Ex.A33 is Proceedings of District Collector, Visakhapatnam dated 04-11-2002. Ex.A34 is the proceedings of VUDA dt.7-10-1998. Ex.A35 is the letter from Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam dated 17-9-2008. Ex.A36 is the statement of J.Vijaya Shankar Ex.A37 is the statement of Mr.M.Shiva Narayana Patrudu.
On the other hand, opposite party No.3 filed affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 6 reiterating the facts stated by opposite party No.1 in his counter and counter affidavit of opposite parties 3 to 6 and relied upon documents marked as Exs.B1 to B10.
Exs.B1 to B4 are certified copy of Form No.32 dated 21-112007 (5-8-1997, 13-12-1985, 5-3-1986, 5-7-1990). Ex.B5 is the Directors report to share holders of M/s.Classic Constructions Private Limited, Haripur Road, Cuttack-1 dated 02-9-1993. Ex.B6 is the Company Master details issued by Registrar of Companies, ROC, Cuttak dated 9-11-2009. Ex.B7 is the certificate of incorporation of M/s.Classic Constructions Pvt. Ltd., issued by Registrar of Companies, Orissa dated 3-3-1986. Ex.B8 is the Annual returns of M/s.Classic Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Ex.B9 is certain information under RTI in L.P.No.64/2004 from Visakhapatnam Urban Development authority dated 27-6-2009. Ex.B10 is the letter dated 27-4-2009 of J.Vijaya Shankar.
The brief point for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite parties and if the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?
It is the case of the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- out of a sale consideration of Rs.8,96,000/- to opposite parties 1 and 2 for allotment of plot nos. 23 and 24 admeasuring 350 sq. yds. each. He submits that he was ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.46,000/- and inspite of several personal requests, complaints, legal notice and also criminal complaint lodged with the police, the opposite parties did not register the plots. The complainant in support of his case filed an affidavit stating that he has obtained information under Right to Information Act on 9-9-2008 and submits in his affidavit that the proceedings of the VUDA in RC.No.160/96-G3 dated 07-10-1998 reveals that J.Vijaya Shankar submitted his application on 23-8-1996 for approval of layout in S.No.98 and 99 of Yendada Village over an extent of Ac.9.80 and basing upon his further application dated 6-10-1998 VUDA granted BLP 22/98. On 04-11-2002 the District Collector granted permission for laying of road on Government land measuring 6 cents in order to construct culverts and to connect internal roads of his private layout. On 27-12-2004 VUDA released final layout in LP 65/2004 to the opposite parties and it is the complainant’s case that on 28-10-2004, J.Vijaya Shankar submitted a representation to VUDA representing M/s.Classic Constructions, opposite party no.1. The complainant has filed as additional evidence i.e. Exs.A18 to 34, the information that he has procured under Right to Information Act. Based on this information, it is the complainant’s case that opposite party Nos.3, 4 and 5 got approval for Aiswarya Gardens Venture in LP 65/2004 from VUDA.
It is the opposite parties who filed their affidavits and also filed Additional documents relating to their company, M/s.Classic Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Exs.B5 to B8, i.e. their Director’s report, Master details issued by ROC, certificate of incorporation, and annual returns issued by ROC respectively. It is the case of opposite party No.1 that their corporate body is not concerned with the lay out of Aiswarya Gardens and opposite party No.1 denies that he instructed opposite party No.2 to receive either cash or receive any amount towards purchase of any plot. The opposite parties contend that the complainant should approach the civil court since his prayer within Specific Relief Act and that this complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. It is the case of the opposite parties 3 to 6 that the complainant had manipulated and tampered the public record misusing the access given to him under the RTI act and opposite party No.3 sought clarification vide application dated 27-4-2009. Opposite parties 1 to 3 were wrongly described in as much as not adding Pvt. Ltd., to the words Classic Construction, They further deny that opposite party No.2 and 3 have nothing to do with the corporate body or the lay out of Aiswarya Gardens and that the complainant is a habitual litigant.
We observe from the record that Ex.A1 is a receipt signed by one Mr.M.S.N.Patrudu on behalf of opposite party No.3 in his individual capacity for an amount of Rs.2,00,000 and is dated 26-9-2002. The complainant also relies on Ex.A15 which is the Statement of account issued by ICICI bank in which on 10-10-2002, cheque No.762094 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been issued in the name of Mr.M.S.N.Patrudu. The complainant further states that on 10-10-2002 an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was drawn in cash and paid to opposite party Nos 1 and 2. It is pertinent to note that there is no such receipt issued in the name of the complainant for this Rs.1,50,000/. We also observe from the record that these amounts under Ex.A1 and A15 do not conclude that the amounts were paid towards purchase of plots under the name of ‘Classic Constructions’ said to have been floated by opposite parties.. There is no agreement executed between the parties which would construe that these amounts were paid to opposite parties 1 and 2 company towards plots. The complainant in his additional documents filed the statements of opposite parties 1 and 2 evidenced under Exs.A36 and A37. We observe from these statements that opposite party No.2 though stated that he received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- states that the complainant and he were friends and he has enchased the cheques and given the amounts to the persons whom the complainant has directed him to pay. He further states that plot Nos. 23 and 24 in S.No.98/28 in Yendada Village were sold to one Mr.Balaji Baktavatsalam of California, USA. The statement of opposite party No.1 in Ex.A36 does not state that the total sale consideration towards these two plots was paid by the complainant. The opposite party in their additional documents has filed vide Ex.B9 information which they have received from RTI No.615/09/L5 dated 27-6-2009, which is as follows:
3. The lands covered by L.P.No.65/04 are either owned or represented
through a GPA by one Classic Constructions Ltd?
A The layout permission, as applied by the land owners, through their
General Power of Attorney Holder for development Sri J.Vijay Shankar,
was released in his favour.
4. Whether M/s.Classic Constructions Ltd., in any way legally connected to
this layout?
A As per the records, M/s.Classic Constructions Ltd., is neither a owner nor
Representing any land owner through a General Power of Attorney, in the
Layout covered by LP.No.65/04.
It is apparent from this information that as per the records, opposite party no.1 is neither owner nor representing any land owner in the lay out covered by LP 65/2004. We also observe from the record that Ex.A1 receipt is dated 26-9-2002 whereas the numbers mentioned in LP No.65/04 was issued in the year 2004. In the absence of any written agreement or any other documentary evidence to substantiate that the amounts paid by the complainant vide Exs.A1 and A15 to M/s.Classic Constructions Pvt. Ltd., and also keeping in view the statement of opposite party No.2 that the plots have already been sold and that these amounts were returned by him to the persons as directed by the complainant, and the allegations and the counter allegations, we are of the considered view that this Commission in its summary jurisdiction cannot determine such complicated questions of fact and law, we are of the considered view that the complainant has to approach the civil court, if so advised and seek remedy. We also rely on the judgment of the apex court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Muni Mahesh Patel reported in (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases page 655 wherein it was held :
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated by the Commission. The Commission having accepted that there was wrong declaration of the nature of occupation of the person insured, should not have granted the relief in the manner done. It was further required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it should exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate Court of law and not the commission.”
The complainant is entitled to seek exclusion of time spent before Fora under Section 14, Limitation Act.
To reiterate, though ex-facie an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- appeared to have been paid to opposite party No.2 the complainant has failed to establish by way of any documentary evidence that these amounts are towards purchase of plots in the said venture of Aiswarya Gardens and that opposite party No.1 company has floated this venture. Ex.B9 clearly specifies that opposite party No.1 company has nothing to do with the approved plan lay out of LP 65/2004. The lay out permission as given under the RTI Act has been given to opposite party No.3 in his individual capacity in the year 2004 whereas the receipt is dated 26-9-2002. The prayer of the complainant is for registration of the plots and in the absence of an agreement that opposite party No.1 company has floated the venture and that amounts were paid towards the housing activity, we are of the considered view that there are complicated questions of fact and law involved for which this Commission is not the appropriate forum to decide the remedy. Hence the complainant is directed to approach the civil court and he is entitled to seek exclusion of time spent before Fora under Section 14, Limitation Act.
Accordingly the complaint is dismissed with the aforementioned direction. No order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM sd/-Dt.30-6-2010
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For Complainant: For Opposite parties:
Affidavit of complainant filed. Opp.party No.3 filed
Affidavit on behalf of other
O.Ps.
Witnesses examined
For Complainant: For Opposite parties:
-nil- -nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.A1 is original receipt for Rs.2,00,000/- dated 26-9-2002.
Ex.A2 is copy of lay out plan.
Ex.A3 is copy of legal notice dated 14-9-2005.
Ex.A4 is postal receipt.
Ex.A5 is representation dated 21-8-2006.
Ex.A6 is representations dated 26-8-2006 submitted to Commissioner of
Police
Ex.A7 and A8 are representations dated 20-9-2006, dated nil submitted to
C.M. respectively.
Exs.A9, A10, A11 are representations dated nil, 10-12-2006, 9-10-2006
submitted to Commissioner of Police.
Exs.A12 and A13 are representations by fax dated 7-10-2006 and 23-9-
2006.
Ex.A14 is the representation dated 27-10-2006 to S.I.
Ex.A15 is Bank statement.
Ex.A16 is E.C. dated 24-8-2006.
Ex.A17 is the Market value certificate dated 24-4-2007.
Ex.A18 is the copy of letter by complainant to VUDA dated 9-9-2009.
Ex.A19 is Proceedings of VUDA dated 27-12-2004.
Ex.A20 is VUDA RC.No.6810/04/APO/CDC/ML dt.27-12-2004.
Ex.A21 is VUDA letter dt.27-12-2004.
Ex.A22 is letter dt.28-10-2004 of J.Vijaya Shankar to VUDA.
Ex.A23 is letter from Gram Panchayat of Yendada dated 23-8-2004.
Ex.A24 is letter of J.V.Shankar and others.
Ex.A25 is Gift deed dated 19-8-2004.
Ex.A26 is layout plan.
Ex.A27 is Certificate of APEPDCL.,
Ex.A28 is IOB Challan dated 9-6-2004.
Ex.A29 is letter dated 9-6-2004 of J.V.Shankar.
Ex.A30 is letter of J.V.Shankar to VUDA.
Ex.A31 is VUDA letter dt.20-1-2004.
Ex.A32 is representation dt.24-12-2003 of J.V.Shankar.
Ex.A33 is Proceedings of District Collector, Visakhapatnam dt 04-11-2002.
Ex.A34 are proceedings of VUDA dt.7-10-1998.
Ex.A35 is letter from Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam dt 17-9-2008.
Ex.A36 is statement of J.Vijaya Shankar
Ex.A37 is statement of Mr.M.Shiva Narayana Patrudu.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Opp.parties:
Exs.B1 to B4 are certified copy of Form No.32 dated 21-112007 (5-8-1997,
13-12-1985, 5-3-1986, 5-7-1990).
Ex.B5 is Directors report to share holders of M/s.Classic Constructions
Private Limited, Haripur Road, Cuttack-1 dated 02-9-1993.
Ex.B6 is Company Master details issued by Registrar of Companies, ROC,
Cuttak dated 9-11-2009.
Ex.B7 is certificate of incorporation of M/s.Classic Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,
issued by Registrar of Companies, Orissa dated 3-3-1986.
Ex.B8 is Annual returns of M/s.Classic Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,
Ex.B9 is certain information under RTI in L.P.No.64/2004 from
Visakhapatnam Urban Development authority dated 27-6-2009.
Ex.B10 is the letter dated 27-4-2009 of J.Vijaya Shankar.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.30-6-2010
L.R. copy marked/not to be marked.
