BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:
C.C.NO.30 OF 2008
Between
Smt Sethumadhavi Nukala R/o 1-9-290/12/1, Vidyanagar
Hyderabad.
M/s Narne Estates Private Limited Pvt. Ltd.,) Regd. Office at 1, Gun Rock Enclave
Secunderabad-009 rep. by its Attn: Chairman
and Managing Director Sri Narne Ranga Rao
Counsel for the Complainant
Counsel for the opposite parties
QUORUM:SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
The complaint is filed u/s 17(a)(1) of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the Narne Estates Private Limited, Secunderabad to register the plot No.169 in Central Park-II Layout situated in Sy.No.218/4, 218/5 of Kondapur Vilalge, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District in favour of the complainant and`3 lakhs towards compensation and costs.
The averments of the complaint are that the complainant’s friend’s son Mr.Johann Christopher purchased a plot No.169 admeasuring 235 sq.yards at Central Park-II layout at Kondapur village, Serilingampalli Mandal R.R.Dist. `1,17,500/- including development charges. `22,500/- on 3.5.1996 and also cleared all the dues. `1,17,500/- and the balance due was`77,500/- and also stated that the registration charges will be intimated when the registration is due. `6,000/- towards installments due w.e.f. February 1996 to April 1996. Immediately the complainant requested the opposite party to register the plot in her name but the opposite party failed to do so. `1,17,875/- along with letter dated 27.10.2007 requested to return the old cheque. Even the opposite party has not received clearance and final layout from HUDA so far. `10,000/- per sq.yards and for 235 sq.yards the present market value of the plot No.169 is more than`25 lakhs hence the Commission has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The opposite party resisted the claim. `1,17,875/- as on 6.11.2006 as per the reminder letter of the opposite party. Though the opposite party provided with ample opportunity and after waited for a reasonable time for payment of dues, the complainant failed to do so. `5 lakhs to`10 lakhs and present more than five crore.
`1,17,500/- which included development charges. `22,500/- on 3.5.1996 and cleared the dues till that day. `Rs.22,500/- and dues of`40,000/-. `2,000/- per month is`6,000/-.
`77,500/- and payment of the registration charges to be made at the time of registration of sale deed. `6,000/- for the period from the month of January 1996 to April 1996 has to be paid by the complainant.
`6,000/-on 17.6.1996 and`500/- on 10.06.1999. `6,000/- plus`500/-.
th
The opposite party has not adduced any evidence to the effect that several letters sent to the complainant requesting her to pay the development charges and those letters were received by the complainant. The complainant had informed the opposite party that she was away from India st
“With reference to my letter, I was outside the country most part of the time. I did not receive the letter that were mentioned in your letter. This was explained to you personally when I visited to your office in the month of Jaunary,2007”.
Prior to the letter dated 1-08-2007, the complainant had sent another letter to the opposite party which infact shows the promise for revocation of the cancellation of allotment. The relevant portion of the letter reads as under:
“Since I was outside the country for most part of the time, I did not receive the notices that were mentioned in your letter. This has been explained to you by my relative Mr.Vemuri Adinarayana who has personally came and visited you after receiving the above letter. I gather from him that you have kindly consented to revoke the cancellation of plot allotment
There is no denial of the facts mentioned in the aforementioned letters. It is the consistent version of the complainant that she has paid the cost of the plot. Any cancellation of the allotment without making demand for the payment of development charges due and without informing the complainant of the progress of the development work cannot be held reasonable and valid.
In the similar facts and circumstances, in “V.Madan Mohan Rao Vs Narne Estate Pvt. Ltd., & Ors” reported in II (2010) CPJ 444, this Commission held the cancellation of the allotment arbitrary and invalid. It was held as follows:
In the light of the condition no.5 in the letter dated 24.11.2004 the delay in payment of developmental charges and registration charges as also the plot charges would result in delay in completion of development works and there has been no mention of completion of the developmental charges in the letter dated 11.4.2005.
The development charges have to be paid by the complainant. The opposite party has to collect the development charges that it has incurred for the development of the plot. The opposite party has demanded the
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The cancellation of the allotment of the plot bearing No.169 in Central Park-II layout situated in Sy.No.218/4, 218/5 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District is set aside. The opposite party directed to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant within fifteen days of receipt of the documentation charges from the complainant. The costs of the complaint quantified at Rs.2,000/-.
KMK*
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
EXHIBITS MARKED
For complainant
Ex.A1 Ex.A2 Ex.A3 Ex.A4 Ex.A5 Ex.A6 Ex.A7 Ex.A8 Ex.A9 Ex.A10 Ex.A11 Ex.A12 Ex.A13
For opposite party
Ex.B1 Ex.B2 Ex.B3 Ex.B4 Ex.B5
Ex.B6 Ex.B7
