BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 561/2008 against C.C. 102/2007, Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy
Between:
1. K. Sabitha Devi, W/o. K. T. Venumadhav
2. K. Venkataratnam, C/o. K. T. Venumadhav
Both R/o. # 407, Sai Krishna Towers
Baghyanagar Colony, Kukatpally
Hyderabad. *** Appellants/
Complainants.
. And
M/s. Sai Mithra Housing Corporation
Flat No. 208, 2nd Floor,
Rajanigandha Apartments
Opp. Chaitnayapuri Bust Stop
Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-69. *** Respondent/O.P
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. P. Sriramulu Naidu
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. N. Srinivasa Rao.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE EIGTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) This is an appeal preferred by the complainants against the order of the Dist. Forum directing them to receive the sale deeds executed by the respondent.
2) The case of the complainants in brief is that they booked plot No. 142 in the name of first complainant and plot No. 169 in the name of second complainant in the venture floated by the respondent and paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,52,500/- each besides development charges. The respondent assured that it would execute the registered sale deeds immediately. When the respondent was postponing they got issued registered notice for which it did not give any reply. Therefore they filed the complaint directing the respondent to execute registered sale deeds for plot Nos. 142 & 169 besides compensation of Rs. 1 lakh together with damages of Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
3) The respondent resisted the case. While admitting that it has floated a venture under the name and style of ‘Shiridi Puram’ and that it had allotted plots admeasuring 400 sq.yds each to the complainants, the payment has to be made in 30 monthly instalments at Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 12,500/- in addition on every fifth month. They did not adhere to the said terms. One of the stipulations is that if they could not pay for five instalments the company had a right to cancel reservation of plots and allot new plot according to the availability in the lay out at the end of the scheme. They did not receive any letter requesting to register the plots. The complaint was filed in order to harass them. In fact it had executed sale deeds in favour of complainants on 16.7.2007 viz., plot No. 156 in favour of complainant No. 1 and plot No. 182 in favour of Smt. B. Lakshmi Padmalath, W/o. Radha Krishna Murthy at the request of complainant No. 2 in the same venture. The complainant had suppressed the above said facts and obtained injunction not to alienate which is not maintainable. Terefore it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4) The complainants in proof of their case filed affidavit evidence.
5) The respondent had filed a memo on 23.2.2008 enclosing the registered sale deeds executed on 16. 7.2007 and taking cognizance of it the Dist. Forum disposed of the complaint directing the complainants to receive the documents and equally the respondent to deliver the same.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainants preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the plots that were purchased by them bear Nos. 142 & 169 while the respondent alleged to have filed the sale deeds pertaining to plot Nos. 156 & 182 for which they never agreed to purchase in the first place. It was altogether different plots, and the Dist. Forum did not even verify and erroneously disposed of the complaint asking them to receive the documents. Therefore they prayed that sale deeds be executed in their favour for the plots purchased by them together with compensation and costs claimed in the complaint.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the respondent a real estate concern had allotted plots Nos. 142 & 169 in favour of the complainants after receiving entire sale consideration besides development charges. It may be stated herein that the complainants after issuing notice dt. 18.4.2007 requesting the respondent to execute registered sale deeds filed the complaint on 23.7.2007. The respondent filed counter on 8.2.2008 mentioning that they have executed the registered sale deeds on 16.7.2007 one week prior to filing of the complaint. The fact that they had executed the sale deeds in favour of complainants was not informed to them. At any rate, the sale deeds which were unilaterally executed by them were for plot Nos. 156 & 182 altogether different from one which they agreed upon viz., plot Nos. 142 & 169. The Dist. Forum simply relied on the memo filed by the respondent without verifying the schedule, it had simply directed the respondent to deliver the documents to the complainants. The respondent could not have executed the sale deeds for some other plots for which the complainants did not enter into an agreement and contend that they had complied the terms of the agreement.
9) Curiously the respondent questioned the conduct of the complainants in filing the complaint by stating “ The Hon’ble Forum may observe the attitude of the complainants, after executing the sale deeds in their favour also they intentionally filed the complaint for best reasons known to them. The complainants suppressed the above facts before the Hon’ble Forum, without giving any notice, information or opportunity to the opposite party got ex-parte interim order made in I.A. 107/2007 on 11.10.2007 which is not maintainable.”
10) We may add herein that even in the appeal this Commission on the application filed in FAIA 972/2008 granted interim injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the plot Nos. 142 & 169 to third parties on 24.4.2008 as the respondent did not choose to contest the matter. The respondent had obviously no explanation to offer as to why and how they could execute registered sale deeds for some other plots for which they did not enter into agreement nor could deliver the plots that were allotted to them. At no time the said fact was informed to them. By unilaterally executing sale deeds without informing the complainants could not bind them nor could the respondents state that it was sufficient compliance under the terms of the agreement. The sale deeds that said to have been executed on 16.7.2007 in regard to plot No. 156 & 182 were undoubtedly would not bind the complainants nor such sale deeds could be valid in the circumstances. Necessarily the respondent has to execute the sale deeds in favour of complainants for plots No. 142 & 169. From the narration of facts, it is obvious that the respondent somehow intends to wriggle out from the agreement and show that they had adhered the terms and mis-guided the Dist. Forum by filing a memo that they had executed the registered sale deeds. This conduct on the part of the respondent cannot be up-held. They are bound to register the sale deeds in favour of the complainants for the plots which were agreed upon. Execution of sale deeds for some other plots cannot be taken cognizance as they were not in consonance with the agreement. Admittedly there are latches on the part of respondent viz., despite notice was issued on 18.4.2007 it did not give reply. In fact the respondent had received the entire sale consideration, as long back as on 9.1.2007 itself, and it had the advantage of money all through, necessarily it was liable to pay compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant for all these days for not having the plots. In the circumstances the order of the Dist. Forum is liable to be set-aside.
11) In the result the appeal is allowed and the order of the Dist. Forum is set-aside. The respondent is directed to execute registered sale deeds in favour of complainants for plot No. 142 and 169 as per the pass books issued by the respondent within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each viz., Rs. 20,000/-. They are also entitled to costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 08. 11. 2010
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
