BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 407/2008 against C.C. 69/2007, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
Smt. M. Uma Maheswari
W/o. Suryavarapu Venkata Ramana Rao
Age: 31 years, House wife
R/o. C-114, S.V.N. Colony
Guntur. Rep. by her GPA Holder
Pilli Uday Kumar, S/o. Seetharamaih
Age: 46 years, NTPC Employee
R/o. B10/65, NTPC,
PTS, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar *** Appellant/
. Complainant
And
Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd.
Hyderabad Branch-II
D.No. 6-3-802, IInd Floor
Zainab Commercial Complex
Ameerpet, Hyderabad
Rep. by its Branch Manager. *** Respondent/
O.P
F.A. 408/2008 against C.C. 68/2007, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
Kum. P. Shalini
D/o. Pilli Uday Kumar
Age: 17 years, Minor
Rep. by her father
Pilli Uday Kumar, S/o. Seetharamaih
Age: 46 years, NTPC Employee
R/o. B10/65, NTPC,
PTS, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar *** Appellant/
. Complainant
And
Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd.
Hyderabad Branch-II
D.No. 6-3-802, IInd Floor
Zainab Commercial Complex
Ameerpet, Hyderabad
Rep. by its Branch Manager. *** Respondent/
O.P
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. CH. Purnachandra Rao
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Swaroop
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) These appeals are preferred against two separate orders in the complaints filed by the very same complainant’s father on behalf of their daughters claiming registration of the plots for which they had paid the amounts towards part of sale consideration.
2) Since they pertain to very same family members between the same parties and in the light of the fact that common questions of fact and law arise, we are of the opinion that the they could be disposed of by a common order.
3) The case of the complainants in brief is that the respondent which is running real estate business floated a scheme under the name and style of ‘Sai Ambica’ wherein it had agreed to allot 200 sq.yds of site in a lay out at Ameenpur village. It had agreed to collect the amounts in instalments through its agents as against sale consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs payable in 45 instalments commencing from 30.4.2003. She had paid Rs. 80,000/- (C.C. 69/2007) and Rs. 1,08,000/- (C.C. 68/2007) on various dates. A pass book was issued wherein payments endorsements were noted by the agents of the respondent. However they stopped coming and collecting instalments due to which they sent a letter on 18.5.2006 for which the respondent gave false reply. This was due to escalation of real estate prices in and around the venture. A legal notice was got issued for which reply was given stating that they had committed default. In fact it was due to non-collection of amounts by the agents and there was no default on their part. They were ready and willing to perform their part of contract by paying arrears and demanded registration of the plots.
4) The respondent resisted the case. While admitting the complainants were joined as members in the venture floated for which it had allotted a pass-book bearing No. 364 and 332 & 333 to the complainants in C.C. 69/2007 and C.C. 68/2007 respectively. and she paid Rs. 40,000/- (C.C. 69/2007) and Rs. 50,000/- (C.C. 68/2007) voluntarily at the time of joining as a member. Clause 4(d) stipulates the rate of the plot viz., Rs. 1,200/- per sq.yd and the total cost would be Rs. 2,40,000/-. She had to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month in 45 instalments and also Rs. 25,000/- in 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th instalments and Rs. 17,500/- in 30th special instalment besides development charges and registration charges. The complainants had committed default in payment of the amounts. Clause 17 stipulates that the complainants had to pay the instalments by way of demand draft. They had been covering up their latches for non-payment of the amounts by stating that the agents were not collecting the amounts. For the notice issued it had given a correct reply. The property is situated at Medak district while the transaction took placed at Hyderabad. The Dist. Forum at Karimnagar has no jurisdiction and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaints with costs.
5) The complainant in proof of her case filed the affidavit evidence of her father & GPA and got Exs. A1 to A11 (C.C. 69/2007) and Exs. A1 to A24 (C.C. 68/2007) marked while the respondent filed the affidavit evidence of its legal and estate officer K. Anjaiah and did not file any documents.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainants were well aware of the stipulations for purchase of the plots mentioned in the pass book and they had committed default in payment of the amounts. They were not entitled to registration of the plots and therefore directed the respondent to refund Rs. 80,000/- (C.C. 69/2007) Rs. 1,08,000/- ( C.C. 68/2007) together with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainants preferred the appeals contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that at no time the respondent complained that they had committed default in payment of instalments. All through the representatives of the respondent have been coming and collecting the amounts. Therefore they prayed that the remaining balance be collected and ordered registration of the plots.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the respondent a real estate company floated a venture for sale of house plots agreed to sell 200 sq.yds of site for a total consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs (C.C. 69/2007) Rs. 2,40,000/- (C.C. 68/2007) on payment of above consideration in 45 instalments at Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 40,000/- as advance and Rs. 25,000/- in 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th instalments and Rs. 17,500/- in 30th special instalment besides development and other charges. It is not in dispute that the complainant in C.C. 69/2007 had paid Rs. 40,000/- as agreed towards first instalment on 30.4.2003 and paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each on 8.1.2004, 25.7.2004, 23.9.2004 and 4.2.2005 vide Exs. A1 to A7 receipts, and the complainant C.C. 68/2007 had paid an amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- vide Exs. A2 to A21. The complainants admittedly did not pay any amount from 4.2.2005 onwards. For the first time they gave legal notice on 27.5.2006 complaining that the representative of the respondent was not coming and collecting the amounts for which the respondent gave reply. The complainants admittedly committed default in payment of subsequent monthly instalments or the special instalments as per the conditions stipulated in the pass book.
Clause-8 stipulates that the plot would be allotted on payment of all the instalments as per the scheme and should not be a defaulter either in payment of monthly instalments or special instalments. The complainants admittedly did not pay the instalments as stipulated in clause-8. Their contention as we have earlier stated is that the agents of the respondent had stopped coming and collecting the instalments and therefore they could not pay. However, clause-17 reads as follows:
“The outstation members can send their monthly instalment amounts by demand draft drawn in favour of the company to the branch office. Those who choose to pay by cheque have to add bank collection charges also.”
Assuming that the complainants were under impression that agents would come and really if the agents did not come for a particular period then they could have sent the amount after waiting for reasonable time remitting the amounts by way of demand draft or cheque or whatever means. On the premise that the agents did not come they could not have committed default in payment of instalments. The plea is contra to clause-17. There was no proof that the agent has been collecting the amounts all through. In fact no plot was allotted for non-payment of the amounts. At any rate the respondent did not choose to file any cross-appeal and in the light of the fact that complainants admittedly committed default in payment of the amounts they were not entitled to any registration. They did not comply any of the conditions stipulated in the pass book. The Dist. Forum after considering the circumstances directed the respondent to refund the amount. It is eminently justified. We do not see either mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. There are no merits in the appeals.
10) In the result the appeals are dismissed. However, no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 17. 09. 2010.
*pnr
