BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 1269 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.299 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between
1. M/s Narne Estates (P) Ltd.,
Office at No.1, Gunrock Enclave
Karkhana, Secunderabad-009
2. Col.(Retd) Narne Ranga Rao
Chairman and Managing Director
M/s Narne Estates (P) Ltd.,
Office at No.1, Gunrock Enclave
Karkhana, Secunderabad-009
Appellants/opposite parties
A N D
Smt V.Radha W/o late V.Seshagiri Rao
Ageda bout 64 yrs, Occ: Housewife
R/o Flat No.202, 1-1-650/5 & 27
VPC Castle, Gandhi Nagar,
Hyderabad
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants Sri K.R.Koteswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent Sri K.Srinivasa Rao
F.A.No. 639 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.299 OF 2007
Between
Smt V.Radha W/o late V.Seshagiri Rao
Ageda bout 64 yrs, Occ: Housewife
R/o Flat No.202, 1-1-650/5 & 27
VPC Castle, Gandhi Nagar,
Hyderabad
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. M/s Narne Estates (P) Ltd.,
Office at No.1, Gunrock Enclave
Karkhana, Secunderabad-009
2. Col.(Retd) Narne Ranga Rao
Chairman and Managing Director
M/s Narne Estates (P) Ltd.,
Office at No.1, Gunrock Enclave
Karkhana, Secunderabad-009
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants Sri K.Srinivasa Rao
Counsel for the Respondent Sri K.R.Koteswara Rao
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
These two appeals arise out of the order dated 29.2.2008 passed by the District Forum-II, Hyderabad. The opposite parties assailed the correctness of the order on the ground that the sale deed could not be executed on account of default committed by the complainant in making payment of development charges of Rs.1,21,301/- and registration charges and maintenance charges and that the complainant is not entitled to the registration of the plot. The question of limitation was stated to have been not considered by the District Forum while passing the impugned order. Whereas the complainant filed the appeal contending that the opposite parties had not demanded for development charges at any time prior to the cancellation of allotment and as such the impugned order is not sustainable insofar as the direction for payment of development charges is concerned.
The minimal facts giving rise to filing of these appeals that the complainant had applied for allotment of a plot and the opposite party allotted the plot bearing NO.AD-79 at East City, Sector V. An amount of Rs.3,200/- towards initial payment and membership fees was made on 7.3.1994 and thereafter the complainant had regularly paid the installments. Subsequently, the opposite parties re-allotted plot no.71 in lieu of the plot no.81. The complainant has paid the final installments and the opposite parties receipt no.625716 dated 12.3.1997 to the effect that there are no dues from the complainant’s husband payable to the opposite party no.1. After the death of the complainant’s husband, the opposite parties informed the complainant and her daughter that their application for sanction of layout plan was pending with HUDA and the plot would be registered in their favour by prior intimation as soon as the layout approval is sanctioned. The complainant’s husband died on 2.2.2002. The opposite parties postponed the registration of the plot. The complainant received a letter dated 30.6.2005 from the opposite parties offering one more site for the existing members. On 15.2.2006 the complainant’s son VV Ananth was informed that his father’s account was overdue for non-payment of certain amounts. The complainant addressed letter dated 15.2.2006 by fax, email and registered post. There was no response from the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued a letter dated 18.2.2006 addressed in the name of the complainant’s late husband which could not be delivered by the postal authorities as he was no more and the complainant informed the same on 23.2.2006 by her letter to the opposite parties and requesting them to inform her the details of the letter sent by them, but there was no response from them.
After waiting for a period of two months, the complainant had addressed another letter dated 29.4.2006 with a request for furnishing of details of the amount to be paid for the purpose of the registration of plot in her favour for which a letter dated 17.5.2006 was issued by the opposite parties. The letter could not be received by the complainant as she was in Bangalore with her daughter and on coming to know the contents of the letter dated 15.5.2006 the son-in-law of the complainant approached the second opposite party who assured him that the issue would be amicably settled after the matter is placed before the higher official of the first opposite party. There was no response for the complainant’s letter dated 15.2.2006 and 29.4.2006, from the opposite parties who in their letter dated 17.5.2006 had not shown sufficient cause for cancellation of the allotment. The letter dated 30.6.2005 sent by the second opposite party quoting the cost of another plot at Rs.500/- per sq.yd shows that the membership of the complainant’s husband was in force. The cancellation of the allotment by the opposite party is arbitrary. Hence, the complaint.
The opposite party no.1 has filed counter admitting the allotment of the plot in favour of the husband of the complainant subject to the terms and conditions of the allotment particularly that the plot would be registered after payment of development charges. Most of the allottees failed to pay the development charges and due to non-payment of the charges the cost of the development works was increased. The opposite party no.1 barrowed huge amount of money for the purpose of development work. Letters dated 26.2.2002, 2.2.2003, 31.8.2003, 17.11.2003, 23.6.2004, 6.9.2004 and 31.12.2004 were issued to the complainant requesting her to pay the development charges of Rs.37,500/- as also the dues was informed from time to time. The complainant has not responded and after issuing letter dated 15.4.2005 and 30.4.2005 the opposite party no.1 informed the complainant that the allotment would be cancelled in case the dues are not cleared. After about seven years, the opposite parties cancelled the allotment and refunded the amount. The complainant has not paid the total cost of the plot. The complainant was informed about the development charges before the allotment was made in her favour. It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The complainant has filed her affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of the opposite parties no oral evidence nor any affidavits had been filed except the documents marked as Exs.B1 to B14.
The District Forum has allowed the complaint with a direction for restoration of membership of the complainant’s husband on receipt of development charges from the complainant besides an award for Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from misappreciation of fact or law?
The allotment of plot bearing No.81 at East City Sector V in the first instance and subsequently plot no.71 was re-allotted is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the basic cost of the plot Rs.30,000/- . It is evident from the allotment letter dated 11.3.1994 issued by the opposite parties that the installments @ Rs.750/- extending over a period of 36 months were payable commencing from the month of April 1994 and ending in the month of March 1997 and that the progress of East City would be intimated to the allottee by quarterly newsletters. The allotment letter has a mention of development charges to the effect that details thereof would be intimated later. The statement of account dated 12.3.1997 goes to show that the basic cost of the plot Rs.30,000/- was paid by the complainant besides showing development charges, registration charges as zero. The letter dated 30.6.2005 offering additional plot at concessional rate to the existing members was issued by the opposite party no.2 was not acted upon by the complainant or her husband.
The complainant has issued letter dated 15.2.2006 requesting the opposite party no.1 to furnish her the details of the amount to be paid and registered the plot in her favour. The complainant has addressed another letter dated 23.2.2006 with the same request and it appears the opposite parties have not given any response. Thereafter, the letters dated 29.4.2006 was addressed with the very same request as was made in the earlier letter. The opposite party no.1 has responded by issuing letter dated 17.5.2006 expressing grief over the demise of the complainant’s husband and informing her that the allotment in favour of her husband was cancelled as also the advance paid by him was refunded through cheque which however was offered to be re-issued subject to the production of death certificate and legal heir certificate by the complainant.
The complainant has got issued notice dated 28.12.2006 which is the replica of the complaint and it goes to show that despite the fact that several letters addressed by the complainant requesting the opposite parties for furnishing of the details of the amount due and for registration of the plot in her favour there was no response from the opposite parties and the cancellation of the allotment made behind back of the complainant without assigning any reason nor giving response to the letter of the complainant as also without showing any sufficient cause in the letter dated 17.5.2006 issued by the opposite party no.1 is not proper and the complainant entitled to the registration of the plot in her favour. The copy of certificate of death and that of legal heir certificate are placed on record as Exs.A13 and A14 in order to show that the requirement of the demand by the opposite parties to the effect that the complainants husband died and she is the legal heir of the allottee.
The opposite parties defended their cancellation of allotment relying upon the conditions of the allotment particularly in regard to the payment of development charges. Condition No.7 to 9 of the application form read as under:
7. Development charges will be paid in installments as notified in quarterly circulars/letters.
8. Registration charges and stamp duty will be born by members as per rates prevailing at the time of registration.
9. Plot will be registered after final sanction of Layout by Country and Town Planning Department of A.P. and receipt of complete payments including cost of plot, development charges, registration charges and any other allied charges from the member.
Now it is to be seen whether the opposite parties intimated the details of development charges by the quarterly circulars as also whether sanction of the layout was intimated to the husband of the complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the opposite parties issued letters dated 26.2.2002, 2.2.2003, 31.8.2003, 17.11.2003, 23.6.2004, 6.9.2004 and 31.12.2004 stating that the complainant’s husband was to pay the development charges of Rs.37,500/- and dues accrued from time to time. The complainant denied receipt of any of the letters except the letter dated 18.2.2006 which was addressed in the name of her husband and that letter too said to have been returned by the postal authorities as the complainant’s husband expired. In fact it is the contention of the complainant that she has informed about non-delivery of the letter dated 18.2.2006 by her letter dated 23.2.2006 for which it is stated that there was no response from the opposite parties. Except a letter dated 15.7.1996 issued by the husband of the complainant that he had shifted his residence from AS Rao Nagar Hyderabad to Radhakrishna Housing Colony and requesting the opposite parties to do the correspondence to that address. There is no evidence of any sort that the opposite parties intimated the development of the project and demanded for the development charges.
This Commission in V.Madan Mohan Rao Vs Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd., and others reported in II (2010) CPJ 444 dealt with the case where in the similar circumstances, held that there was no sufficient correspondence bringing to the knowledge of the complainants that civil works commenced and the demand for development charges thereto. It was held “the opposite parties though stated they have waited for a period of decade and then cancelled the allotment of the plot of the complainant there has been no evidence from their side to suggest that the civil works commenced from such and such date and the complainant was requested to pay the development charges thereto”.
Coming to the question of limitation, it was contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation as the cancellation of the allotment was made on 15.5.2006 and from the date of cancellation the complaint has to be filed within the period of two years. Admittedly the complaint was filed on 2.4.2007. Even according to the version of the opposite parties, the complaint is well within the period of limitation. Hence, the objection on the aspect of limitation is without any merits and as such is untenable.
The opposite party has stated that it has cancelled the allotment of the plot as the complainant failed to pay the development charges. We have discussed in detail that there was no such demand as was said to have been made in regard to the payment of development charges. The opposite party cannot resort for unilateral cancellation of the allotment without making any demand for development charges. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties had asked for production of death certificate and legal heir certificate for reissuing the cheque. At the same time it cannot be forgotten that the opposite parties had taken inconsistent plea in its counter that the correspondence was made with the complainant’s husband and in the same tone it was contended that the opposite parties had informed the complainant that the allotment was prone to be cancelled if the dues are not cleared. In the counter it is pleaded as under:
In reply to the other allegations, this opposite party submits that as stated above the complainant has not paid the total cost of the plot. Before allotment of plot, the complainant was informed to pay the development charges when intimated”.
The question of any intimation to the complainant and the complainant claiming registration of the plot in her favour would come to the surface on two occasions, when the complainant’s husband makes a request for transfer of the allotment of the plot from his name in the name of the complainant and the second occasion would be where the complainant’s husband is expired. Admittedly, the husband of the complainant died on 2.2.2002. In that case it is beyond the imagination of the complainant to come across the contention of the opposite parties that she was informed of the development charges even before the allotment of the plot was made in her favour. The evidence placed on record on behalf of the opposite parties does not show any correspondence or allotment of the plot in the name of the complainant. Therefore, looking at from any angle of the contention of the opposite parties has not been substantiated by evidence either oral or documentary and as such we are not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned findings of the District Forum. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result both appeals F.A.No.1269 of 2009 and F.A.No.639 of 2008 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.06.08.2010
KMK*
