Complaint is filed on 18-06-2009
Compliant disposed on 25-09-2009
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::AT:: K A R I M N A G A R
PRESENT: HON’BLE KUM. G.V.N.R. BHANUMATHI, M.A. B.L.,
Prl. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE & I/c. Ist ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE & PRESIDENT (F.A.C.) AND
SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.LL.B., MEMBER
FRIDay, THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND NINE
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 95 OF 2009
Between:
Chinnamadhavuni Shiva Kumar Raju, S/o. Gopal Raju, age 40 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No.2-10-766, Jyothinagar Street, Karimnagar – 505 001.
…Complainant
AND
M/s. Sreemitra Estates Pvt. Ltd., R/by it’s Director, M. Dasharatha Rama Rao, S/o. Ram Krishna Rao, age 45 years, R/o. Hyderabad, Registered Office, H.No.16-11-486/C, Beside: Trinetra Super Market, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad – 500 060.
…Opposite Party
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 16-09-2009, in the presence of Sri G. Srinivas Goud and B. Mallesh, Advocates for complainant, and opposite party remained exparte, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
::ORDER::
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite party to deliver physical possession plot no.42, measuring 267 sq. yards in Greater Mount Vagas and to pay compensation, expenses and costs of the proceedings.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the opposite party is doing Real Estate business and they offered sale of plots to the interested persons at Greater Mount Vagas through their agents namely Ravishankar and Shankar Goud at Karimnagar. Being attracted by the offer made by them the complainant purchased plot no.42, measuring 267 sq. yards and paid the sale consideration. When the opposite party did not transfer the said plot, the complainant filed C.D.No.88 of 2008 before this Forum against the opposite party for allotment and transfer of the plot. During pendency of the said case the opposite party compromised the matter and agreed to allot the plot by executing the Registered Sale Deed. In view of compromise the said case was disposed of. Subsequently the opposite party executed the Registered Sale Deed bearing document no.2914/08 Dt: 28.7.2008 for transfer of plot no.42. In the month of August 2008 the complainant went to Greater Mount Vagas to see the physical position of the plot, but he was surprised to note that there is no lay-out and the plot no.42 could not be located. Immediately he has asked the site Supervisor about his plot, but he carelessly informed him that the plots are not yet demarcated and it will take some more time. Infact as per the Registered Sale Deed it is stated by the opposite party that the plots are already made with approved lay-out. The opposite party without demarcating plots cheated the complainant. When he demanded the opposite party about physical delivery of possession of the plot they refused to do so. Therefore, the complainant got issued a Legal Notice Dt: 1.6.2009 demanding the opposite party to deliver the plot and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation. Inspite of service of the said notice the opposite party failed to respond. The acts of the opposite party constitutes deficiency of service. Therefore, the complainant sought direction for delivery of the plot along with compensation expenses and costs of the case.
3. The opposite party remained exparte and did not choose to file any counter.
4. The complainant filed his Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of Sale Deed No.2914/08 Dt: 28.7.2008 (in 8 sheets). Ex.A2 is the Legal Notice issued by counsel for complainant addressed to opposite party Dt: 1.6.2009. Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgement cards (2) and postal receipt (1).
5. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
6. A perusal of the Registered Sale Deed under Ex.A1, discloses that the opposite party represented by its director M.Dasaradha Rama Rao has executed Registered Sale Deed NO.2914/2008 on 28.7.2008 in favour of the complainant for transfer of plot no.42 measuring 267 sq. yards in survey no.376/5, 376/18, 376/27 and 376/22 of Batasingaram village. In the said document it is stated by the opposite party that they purchased large extent of land in the above said survey numbers and demarcated plots by obtaining approved lay out. When the complainant went to the area he did not find plot no.42 and the representative of the opposite party informed him that the plots are not yet demarcated. When the complainant served Legal Notice under Ex.A2 Dt: 1.6.2009 the opposite party did not take steps to hand over plot to him. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party sold plot no.42 to the complainant by receiving sale consideration and in the earlier case in C.D.No.88/2008 they have promised to deliver the plot to the complainant. When the opposite party executed Sale Deed for transfer of plot, they are under an obligation to hand over physical possession of the plot by forming roads with specific measurements. Failure to do so constitutes deficiency of service. The attitude of the opposite party in non-demarcation of plots clearly established their negligent attitude towards it’s consumers. Even after service of notice in this case the opposite party did not chose to give reply to the claim made by the complainant. The complainant joined in this scheme for allotment of plot in the year 2002 on the offer made by the opposite party and for the last seven years the complainant has to go round the office of opposite party for allotment of plot. Since there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party the complainant is entitled to receive compensation from the opposite party. In view of the said reasons, we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, we direct the opposite party to hand over physical possession of the plot to the complainant and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
7. In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to hand over physical possession of plot no.42 covered by the Sale Deed to the complainant and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the case within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 25th day of September, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE
FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the attested copy of Sale Deed No.2914/08 Dt: 28.7.2008 (in 8 sheets).
Ex.A2 is the Legal Notice issued by counsel for complainant addressed to opposite party Dt: 1.6.2009.
Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgement cards (2) and postal receipt (1).
FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
