Between

1.     Vijaya Nagarjuna Consumers’
        Welfare Society, Regd. No.486/2008
        rep. by its President Dr.T,K.Srinivasulu
        S/o Kesavulu aged about 59 years,
        Occ: Retired Chief Medical officer
        R/o H.No.23-5-465, Lal Darwaza X Roads
        Hyderabad-65

2.     Sri Y.Kistaiah S/o late Chandraiah
        Aged about 62 years, occ: Retired
        Govt. Employee R/o H.No.9-35,
        Musi Road, Nakrekal, Nalgonda Dist.
        rep. Sri Dindigallu Venkateshwarlu
        S/o Maraiah R/o Qatar

                                                                Complainants

        A N D

Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar, Chief Executive Officer
Suchirindia Properties Private Limited
Plot No.61-B, Journalists Colony-B,
Chalapathirao Nagar, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad-500 034                                     Opposite party

Counsel for the Complainants               Party in person

Counsel for the opposite party      Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy & Associates

QUORUM:                   SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER

&

                            SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                           THURSDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

                                            TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
                                             ***

1.     The complaint is filed against Suchir India Private Limited seeking direction for refund of the cost of the plot  `18,66,300/- with interest @ 24% per annum an amount of  `8,21,172/-, compensation of  `18,66,300/- and costs of  `10,000/-

2.     The averments of the complaint are that the complainant no.1 is a registered consumer society and the complainant no.2 is a retired government employee.  The complainant no.2 made payments on behalf of his relative D.Venkateswarlu who is working abroad as a Chemical Engineer at Qatar after going through the advertisement made by the opposite party, D.Venkateswarlu requested the complainant no.2 to request the opposite party for allotment of a plot.  The opposite party had advertised that its project ‘Silver Sands’ was approved by HMDA in the year 2007, the project includes children tot lot, children park, hospitals, schools commercial complex, public amenity places, water fountain etc., stated in the para 2 of the complaint.  D.Venkateswarlu paid an amount of  `5 lakhs through the complainant no.2 to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties allotted plot no.141 admeasuring 4449 yards in Silver Sands and promised the plot        with lay out from HMDA.  The second complainant obtained loan an amount of  `13,66,300/- and paid total consideration of  `18,60,000/- to the opposite party whereon the opposite party executed agreement of sale in favour of D.Venkateswarlu and promised to develop the plot and provide amenities.  The opposite party  executed registered sale deed in favour of the second complainant within 18 months therefrom i.e., 10.2.2009.  Even after 20 months,  the opposite party had not executed sale deed.  The opposite party mortgaged the plot allotted to D.Venkateswarlu in favour of HMDA and offered another plot admeasuring 600 sq.yards and demanded to pay for additional 156 sq.yards @  `4200/- per sft, a total amount of  `6,55,200/- as an additional cost.

3.     The second complainant got issued notice on 17.4.2009 with a demand for execution of the sale deed for the plot no.141 or in the alternative refund the amount of  `18,66,300/- with interest @ 2% per annum.  The opposite parties informed the complainant no.2 that the plot no.141 was under mortgage to HMDA and the mortgage cannot be regularized until the developmental works are completed for coming out which the opposite parties had no money.  The opposite parties also informed the complainant no.2 that it would take two to three years for them to execute sale deed and proper amenities.  The opposite party no.1 informed in executive body meeting on 27.3.2009 that he visited Antarctica during first and second of March 2009 and he narrowly escaped death by slipping off ice mountains.  The complainant no.2 apprehends neither safety nor security for refund of money in case death of the opposite party no.2.  The opposite parties purchased land and initiated 12 ventures such as Vintage Vally, Gold Coast, Gold Coast Down Town, Romana County, West Brook, West Brook Sierra, Phoenix Port, Timber Leaf, Bloomz, Coral Reaf, Lei Colasa, Koyalagudem Venture and Yadagirigutta Venture by investing about 12 crores and encroached government lands and sold them at exorbitant rates by collecting about 10 crores.  The opposite parties made promise to provide for unimaginable amenities such as fresh water streams (river), bungee jump in Silver Sands Venture.  The opposite parties failed to develop any venture.

4.     The opposite party no.1 filed counter contending that the complainants are not customers of the opposite party nor they are the consumers.  The complainants are entitled to represent D.Venkateswarlu.  The complaint is not maintainable.  The transaction was taken place between the opposite party no.2 and D.Venkateswarlu.  The civil court is competent to grant relief under specific relief Act.  The complaint filed by the complainants in their personal capacity is not maintainable. The Silver Sand venture was promoted by the opposite party no.2.  The complainants are not parties to the agreement of sale that was entered into between opposite party no.2 and  D.Venkateswarlu.  The second complainant worked as marketing agent of the opposite partyno.2.  The second complainant arranged for sale of plot in favour of D.Venkateswarlu for which he received commission from the opposite party no.2.  The lay out approval from HMDA was obtained by the opposite party no.2 and the developmental activities at the venture are in progress.  It is open to D.Venkateswarlu to get the sale deed registered in his name for the plots as per the terms and conditions of the venture and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement sale.

5.     The second complainant has filed the affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A13.  On the side of the opposite parties, opposite party no.2 has filed affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B7.   

6.     The points for consideration are:

1)    Whether the complainants have locus standi to file the complaint?

2)    Whether the opposite parties are liable to refund ?

3)    Whether D.Venkateswarlu can only maintain the complaint?

4)    Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

5)    To what relief?

7.     POINT NO.1      The first complainant is a registered society.  The second complainant is a retired employee.  The opposite party raised objection as to the maintainability of the complaint in view of the agreement of sale entered into between D.Venkateswarlu and the opposite party.  A perusal of the agreement of sale dated 21.8.2007 render support to the contention of the opposite party.  The document was entered into between M/s Suchitra Properties Pvt. Ltd., i.e., the opposite party and Dindigal Vekateswarlu.  The notice dated 17.4.2009 issued on behalf of D.Venkateswaralu and the complainant no.2 goes to show that D.Venkateswarlu requested the complainant no.2 to contact the opposite party for the purpose of purchasing a plot for him in pursuance of which the amount of `18,64,800/- sent by him was paid to the opposite party.  Interestingly, the contention of the complainant particularly the complainant no.2 is that the amount was paid through the second complainant to the opposite party, the agreement of sale was executed in favour of D.Venkateswarlu.  The parties to the contract alone are entitled to pursue the terms of the contract by way of filling suit or complaint.  The complainants have not obtained any authorization from D.Venkateswarlu nor the name of D.Venkateswarlu is mentioned anywhere in the cause title of the complaint.  Viewed from any angle, the complainants have no locus standi to file the complaint.  In the light of admission of the opposite party and expression of its readiness to proceed with in terms of the agreement of sale, D.Venkateswarlu is at liberty to initiate proceedings against the opposite party.  The point is answered against the complainants.

8.     POINTS NO.2 TO 4    In view of our finding that the complaint is not maintainable, we do not feel it any more necessary to take up other issues for discussion. 

9.      POINT NO.5      In the result the complaint is dismissed.  In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                MEMBER

                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                           Dt.7.10.2010

KMK*