BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.1712/2007 against C.C.No.295/2007, District Consumer Forum-III,HYDERABAD.

Between:

Bonthu Brahma Reddy,

401, Mary House, 12-13-253,

Sough Lallaguda,

St.No.3, Tarnaka,

Secunderabad-500 017.                                                                                     

Managing Director,

M/s.Narne Estates Private Limited,

No.1, Gunrock Enclave,

Secunderabad-500 009.                                                                                                                                                                            

For the Appellant: Party in person

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s.K.B.Ramanna Dora.

F.A.No.938/2008 against C.C.No.295/2007, District Consumer Forum-III,HYDERABAD.

Between:

M/s.Narne Estates Private Limited,

No.1, Gunrock Enclave,

Secunderabad-500 009.

Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,

Col.N.Ranga Rao, S/o.late N.V.Naidu,

Aged about 63 years.                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Bonthu Brahma Reddy,

S/o.Sri Veera Reddy,

R/o.H.No.401, Mary House, 12-13-253,

Sough Lallaguda,

St.No.3, Tarnaka,

Secunderabad-500 017.                                                                                                                                                                                        Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.K.B.Ramanna Dora

Counsel for the Respondent: - party in person.

                                               QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT

Oral Order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

***

           Hyderabad, complainant preferred F.A.No.1712/2007 and opposite party preferred F.A.No.938/2008. 

           EastCity   28-12-2006  14-3-200721-3-2007but opposite party failed to respond. 

           EastCity  12-12-2006stating that since the sanction is expected to take a longer time, offered alternative plot or refund of the amount paid by the complainant. 26-12-2006 

            Apex CourtBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SYNDICATE BANKreported in2007 (6) SCC 1711thatwhere time is not essence of the contract and buyer does not issue a notice making time the essence by fixing a reasonable time for performance, if the buyer, instead of rescinding the contract on the ground of non performance, accepts the belated performance in terms of the contract, there is no question of any breach or payment of damages under the general law governing contracts’.

Therefore he contended that compensation awarded is without any basis.  is offered in view of 

We have gone through the material on record. It is the case of the complainant that he had paid the entire amount for the plot in the year 2000 and development charges in the year 2003 which fact was not denied      form as and when the registration commences. 28-12-2006  complainant stating that the development work will take some time and to          paid the entire cost of the plot and the developmental charges way back   innumerable    Opposite party  complainant that the developmental work is going on and the registration would take some time. 

           We find force in the contention of the complainant that having paid the entire amount and after allotment of plot number, the act of the opposite party in accepting the amount when there was no proper layout, amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.      

            JM                                                                              26-8-2008.