BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (under Consumer Protection Act, 1986) OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FA NO.338 OF 2017 AGAINST CC NO.21 OF 2016

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, MAHABUBNAGAR

Between:

1)       The Telangana State Industrial

          Infrastructure Corporation Limited,

          Represented by its Zonal Manager,

          Shamshabad Zone, Opp: RSFP & D

          Srisailam Road, Pahadi Shareef (via)

          Keshavgiri Post, Hyderabad – 500 005.

2)       The Assistant Regional Manager,

          now Re-designated as (Manager-AM),

          Telangana State Industrial

          Infrastructure Corporation Limited,

          Sub-Zonal Office, Industrial Park,

          Mahabubnagar.                                  …Appellants/Opposite parties

And

M/s Mallikarjuna Poultry Farm,

Rep. By its Proprietor K.Kasturi

W/o Raghu Ramulu, aged about 50 years,

Occ: Business, R/o Palem village,

Bijinapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar district.…Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants       :         M/s K.Srinivasa Rao

Counsel for the Respondent     :         M/s K.R.R. Associates

CORAM :

Hon’ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal   …      President

and

Sri K.Ramesh     …      Member

Thursday, the Fifteenth day of November

Two thousand Eighteen

Oral Order :

***

          Opposite parties in CC No.21 of 2016 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 23.08.2017 directing them to execute the sale deed in favour of the Complainant for the Plot No.23, situated at Industrial Estate, Palem by receiving an amount of Rs.7,750/- from the Complainant and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs of the proceeding, within one month from the date of the order.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3)       The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that, in the year 1989, the Opposite parties allotted plot No.23 @ Rs.6/- per square yard to the Complainant.  On payment of amount, the agreement was executed in the year 1995 and delivered possession of the said plot assuring to provide water facility for construction work, but failed to do the same.  Complainant said to have obtained permission from Gram Panchayat in the year 1996 but could not commence construction for want of sale deed.  While things stood thus, the Opposite parties addressed letter dated 28.02.2011 asking the Complainant to pay Rs.50/- per square yard towards land cost, to which, the Complainant paid Rs.7,750/- on 27.12.2011 in the form of demand draft which the Opposite parties encashed.  However, by letter dated 20.11.2015, the Opposite parties addressed letter informing the Complainant that the plot allotted to him was allotted to some third parties in pursuance of meeting held on 25.12.2011.  The plot is still in possession of the Complainant.  Having received entire sale consideration, the Opposite parties failed to execute the sale deed which amounts to deficiency of service, hence, the complaint.

4)       The Opposite parties though served with notice have failed to make their appearance and were remained ex parte before the forum below.

5)       During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove its case, the Complainant got filed a memo to treat the affidavit filed along with the complaint as evidence affidavit and the documents Ex.A1 to A7. 

6)       The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.21/2016, by orders dated 23.08.2017, as stated, at paragraph No.1, supra. 

7)       Aggrieved by the above orders, the Opposite parties therein filed the present appeal contending that the forum below ought to have rejected the claim of the Respondent since the subject plot was allotted to one M/s Vijay Bheri Agro in view of documentary evidence produced by the very Respondent itself.  It allowed the complaint without there being any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the Appellants.  It ought to have seen that the dispute is one of civil in nature, as such, the complaint was exercised without jurisdiction.

8)       The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?  To what relief ?

9)       It is not in dispute that the Respondent is the proprietary firm, to which, the subject plot was allotted as long back in the year 1994 and possession was delivered.  A perusal of the documents marked by the Respondent would make it clear that the plot in question was allotted subject to compliance of the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement for sale of plot dated 04.08.1995.  As per the recitals therein, time is the essence of the contract and the Respondent shall not request for execution of sale deed before functioning of the unit and has to utilize minimum of 1/6^th area out of the land allotted for construction of poultry building before taking registration of plot, and that the respondent shall commence construction of the building within six months of possession apart from several other conditions.

10)     Admittedly, the appellants who were the Opposite parties in the forum below did not contest the matter and therefore, could not produce either oral or documentary evidence.  In that view of the matter, the forum below granted the relief to the Respondent/Complainant.

11)     The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants/Opposite parties submit that the matter need to be heard in detail and that they have got sufficient oral and documentary evidence which is sufficient to substantiate the claim that the Respondent/Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs.  However, this contention of the Appellants/Opposite parties is refuted by the Respondent/Complainant.  Be that as it may, since the matter was disposed of ex parte, the interest of justice demands that the matter needs to be remanded to the forum below for proper adjudication.  We, therefore, allow the appeal accordingly by setting aside the orders dated 23.08.2017 made in CC No.21/2016 by directing the forum below to dispose of the matter afresh by affording opportunity to both sides to lead oral and documentary evidence.

12)     In the result, the appeal is ordered accordingly.  The parties shall bear their own costs.

PRESIDENT                         MEMBER

Dated 15.11.2018