BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President And Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member Friday the 2nd day of November, 2012 C.C.No.33 /2012 Between: Sai Saran Nivas Plots Owners Welfare Association, Represented by its Treasurer P.Srinivas Reddy, S/o P.Chinna Lakshmi Reddy, H.No.41/366, Kotha Peta, Kurnool – 518 001. …Complainant -Vs- 1. N.Venkata Reddy, 43/86, Flat No.403, Santha Apartments, Near Saint Joseph Boys Hostel, N.R.Peta, Kurnool – 518 002. 2. Ramgopal Reddy, Flat No.303, A Block, Viswa Sai Residency, Opp. Netaji English Medium School, Nandikotkur Road, Kurnool – 518 004. ...Opposite ParTies This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri.B.V.Ramana Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following. ORDER (As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member) C.C. No.33/2012 1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:- (a) To direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the expenditure amount of Rs.25,000/- each to 18 members of the complainant Association which was spent for filing the W.P.No.989/2007 before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh; (b) To fulfill the left over Six promised works namely: 1. Layout of Tar Road measuring 40X30, 2. Playground for Children, 3. Open Space for Community Hall etc., roughly 100 cents towards Public Interest, 4. Water Supply to every Plot, 5. Drainage Facility. (c) To handed over the Original Documents of the Land, Link Documents, Conversion Certificate, List of Purchasers of Plots in the venture to regularizing the layout; (d) To grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the compensation for causing mental agony and hardship; (e) To grant the cost of this complaint; And (f) To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is a association of Sai Saran Nivas Plots Owners represented by its Treasurer P.Srinivasa Reddy. The opposite parties are the promoters and developers of Sai Saran Estates. They started a venture in the name of the Sai Saran Nivas in an extent of 20 Acres covered by Survey No.19 of Dinnedevarapadu. At the time of staring the venture, the opposite parties induced the members of the complainants association to purchase the plots in the venture with attractive promises. The opposite parties also issued a broacher promising to provide the facilities like laying Tar Road, Play Ground for Children etc,. The members of the complainants association paid the installments and got the plots Registered in their name. After registration of the plots in the name of the members of the complainant association the A.P. Wakf Board notified the entire layout in Survey No.19 of Dinnedevarapadu Gram Panchayat as Wakf Board Property. The complainant association members and some others filed W.p.No.989/2007 before the Honourable High Court Challenging the G.O. dated 01-09-2005 by spending Rs.25,000/- each. On 20-06-2011 the Honourable High Court delivered Judgment quashing the G.O. dated 01-09-2005. After the Judgment the members of complainant’s association met the opposite parties and demanded to provided facilities promised and also to pay Rs.25,000/- each towards cost incurred by them. The opposite parties were reluctant to fulfill the promises made by them. The members of the complainant association got issued legal notice to the opposite parties demanding them to fulfill the promises. The opposite parties received the said notice but they have not provided the facilities as promised. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint. 3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.2. It is stated in the written version of opposite party No.1 that the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite parties along with others were doing work of development of land an assignment basis. The opposite parties have no direct link with the plot owners or any other public with regard to the amenities to be provided. The opposite parties were doing the development work till 2005. After that there is no connection between the land lords and developers. After 2005 there is no connection in between the partners in the development activity. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The complainant association has no legal entity as the opposite parties are also members of the plots in Sai Saran Nivas. The plots are said to have purchased by the members of the association in the year 2003 – 2004. As such the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant association has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The opposite party N o.1 is also a party in the Writ Petition No.989/2007. There is no relationship in between the complainant association and the opposite parties. The purchase of the plots by the members of the complainant’s association is no way related to opposite parties as the plots are sold by one Perugu Muralidhar Reddy and others of Dinnedevarapadu Village. The broachers said to have printed with attractive offers is related to the plots purchased by the complainant’s association from its owners. There is no relationship between the Sai Saran Estates and the purchases of the plots in Survey No.19 of Dinnedevarapadu Village. The members of the complainant association never spent any amount for litigation. It is the land lords who have spent the amount for litigation and got the G.O. of Wakf Board Quashed. There are no merits in the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the complainant association Ex.A1 to A20 are marked and sworn affidavit of its Treasurer and third party affidavits of Sri.P.Prabhakar and Sri.G.Manmatha Reddy are filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B10 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite parties 1 and 2 and third party affidavits Sri.A.Damodara Reddy, Sri.Dr.P.Sunil Kumar Reddy, Sri.S.Jayarami Reddy and Sri.M.Sudhakar Reddy are filed. 5. Both sides filed written arguments. 6. Now the points that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? ii. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties? iii. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? iv. To what relief? 7. POINT No.i :- Admittedly an extent of 20 Acres in Survey No.19 of Dinnedevarapadu Village was developed and divided into plots. The members of the complainant association and the opposite parties are the owners of the plots in Sai Saran Nivas. Admittedly after the purchase of the plots by the members of the complainant association and the opposite parties, the A.P. Wakf Board notified the entire land in Survey No.19 of Dinnedevarapadu Gram Panchayat as Wakf Board property and issued G.O. dated 01-09-2005 (Ex.A20) some of the plot owners in Sai Saran Nivas including opposite party No.1 filed Writ Petition No.989/2007 before the Honourable High Court challenging the G.O. The Honourable High Court on 20-06-2011 passed an order quashing G.O. dated 01-09-2005. Ex.A3 is the copy of the High Court Order dated 20-06-2011. 8. It is the case of the complainant that its members purchased the plots in the year 2003 – 2004, that the opposite parties failed to provide facilities as promised, and that the present complaint is filed after disposal of the Writ Petition. It is the case of the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by limitation. Section 24 (a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the period of limitation is two years to file the complaint before the District Forum from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Admittedly the members of the complainant association and others purchased the plots in the year 2003 – 2004. The present complaint is filed on 24-01-2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing from the complainant that inspite of several demands from the beginning the opposite parties failed to provide the facilities as promised in the broacher Ex.A6, and that the cause of action is continuing. On the other had the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant is not filed within two years from the date of the cause of action and that the present complaint is not maintainable. In support of his contention he relied on the decisions reported in 2012 LAWS (NCD) - 2 – 26, 1995 LAWS (NCD) – 11 – 69, 2011 LAWS (NCD) – 8 – 28, 2011 LAWS (NCD) – 1 – 26 and 2011 LAWS (NCD) – 7 -52. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down in the said decisions. In the decisions reported in IV (2012) CPJ 36 (NC) the Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held “where there is immovable property and amenities promised by opposite party were not provided, it can be construed as continuing cause of action and it cannot be said to be barred by time.” In the present case on the hand also admittedly no facilities mentioned in the broacher Ex.A6 are provided. The dispute relates to the facilities to be provided in the immovable property which was purchased by the members of complainant association and others. The cause of action is a continuing one. Therefore we are of the firm opinion that the complaint is well in time. 9. POINTS ii and iii:- It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties are promoters and developers of Sai Saran Estates and they started the venture under the name Sai Saran Nivas in the year 2003 – 2004 in Survey No.19. It is the contention of the opposite parties that they are nothing to do with Sai Saran Estates. The complainant filed Ex.A8 copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 10-11-2004 executed by opposite party No.1 and Ex.A9 copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 27-02-2004 executed by opposite party No.2. They do not disclose that the opposite parties are the promoters of Sai Saran Estates. The opposite parties also filed Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 photo copies of the Registered Sale Deed relating to the plots in Sai Saran Nivas and the third party affidavits of Sri.A.Damodara Reddy, Sri.Dr.P.Sunil Kumar Reddy, Sri.S.Jayarami Reddy and Sri.M.Sudhakar Reddy who purchased the plots in Sai Saran Nivas. They stated in their sworn affidavits that Perugu Muralidhar Reddy and P.Krishana Reddy executed the sale deeds in their favour. In Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 Registered Sale Deeds there is no mention that the opposite parties are the promoters of Sai Saran Estates. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the opposite parties promoters the Sai Saran Estates and issued the broachers Ex.A6 relating to Sai Saran Nivas. Admittedly prior to the filing of the complaint legal notice was got issued to the opposite parties. Ex.A4 is the copy of the said legal notice dated 20-11-2011 along with acknowledgements of the opposite parties. In the legal notice Ex.A4 it is mentioned that the opposite parties are promoters of Sai Saran Estates, that they started the venture in the name of Sai Saran Nivas and that they failed to provided the facilities as promised in the broacher. The opposite parties having received the said legal notice did not choose to give any reply. If there is truth in the contention of the opposite parties they would have got a reply notice issued immediately. The inaction of the opposite parties in giving reply goes to show that there is no truth in their contention. The complainant in order to establish that the opposite parties promoted Sai Saran Estates and issued the broacher Ex.A6 relied on Ex.A10 to Ex.A19. Ex.A10 is the Pass Book issued by Sai Saran Estates, Kurnool and Ex.A11 to Ex.A17 are the payment printed receipts. As seen from Ex.A10 to Ex.A17 it is very clear that the opposite party No.1 signed them as Managing Partner of Sai Saran Estates. Ex.A18 is the Sale Agreement Written on Stamped Papers dated 14-10-2003 purchased by Sri N.Venkata Reddy opposite party No.1 as partner of Sai Saran Estates. Ex.A18 sale Agreement was executed by the opposite parties in favour of Sri.P.Prabhakar. The said Sri.P.Prabhakar filed his affidavit stating that on 15-10-2003 the opposite parties entered in to an agreement with him to sell the plot bearing No.186 and later they got the sale deed executed in his favour through the original owners Perugu Muralidhar Reddy and others. Ex.A19 is the copy of the Sale Deed executed in respect of plot No.186. As seen from the contents of ex.A18 it is very clear that the opposite parties entered an agreement of sale with the original owners of the land Perugu Muralidhar Reddy and others, developed the said land as partners of Sri Sai Saran Estates and sold the plots to various persons by collecting the amounts in installments. It is admitted by the opposite parties that they along with others took land from land lords for development and that they did said development work till 2005. The evidence available on record and the circumstances go to establish that it is the opposite p arties who started the venture Sai Saran Nivas, developed it and sold the plots to various persons including the members of complainant’s association. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the original owners of the land are the promoters of Sai Saran Estates. Ex.A10 to Ex.A18 are relevant documents which reveal that the opposite parties entered into an agreements with various persons and made them to purchase the plots. In Ex.A6 broachers there is a clear mention about the facilities to be provided to the members of the Sai Saran Nivas. The opposite parties have in induced the public to purchase the plots with attractive facilities but failed to provide the same. Inspite of the demand made by the members of the complainant’s association the opposite parties did not care to provide Tar Roads, Play Ground for Children etc., as stated in the complaint. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 11. According to the complainant that 18 members of the complainant association spent Rs.25,000/- each for filing Writ Petition No.989/2007, and that the opposite parties are liable to pay the same. No documentary evidence is placed by the complainant to show that 18 members spent of Rs.25,000/- each for litigation. In the absence of any documentary evidence we think it is not just and reasonable to direct the opposite parties to pay the said amount to the complainant. There is no evidence that the original documents of the land are with the opposite parties. 12. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to provide Tar Road measuring 40X30, Playground for Children, Open Space for Community Hall, Water Supply to every Plot, Drainage Facility and Fencing to entire colony as promised, in Sai Saran Nivas Colony within Six months from the date of order and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 2nd day of November, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses Examined For the complainant: Nill For the opposite parties : Nill List of exhibits marked for the complainant:- Ex.A1 Photo copy of Certificate of Registration of Society No.253/2011 dated 04-08-2011. Ex.A2 Photo copy of Requisition Letter submitted by Sai Saran Nivas Plots Owners Welfare Association, Kurnool to OPs dated 07-08-2011. Ex.A3 Photo copy of High Court Order in W.P.No.989/2007 in the High Court of Judicature, A.P. at Hyderabad dated 20-06-2011. Ex.A4 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 20-11-2011 along with Postal Receipts and Acknowledgements (Nos.2). Ex.A5 Photo copy of General Body Meeting dated 16-10-2011. Ex.A6 Broucher of Sai Saran Nivas Ex.A7 Letter issued by Sai Saran Nivas Plots Owners Welfare Association, Kurnool dated 09-03-2012. Ex.A8 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 10-11-2004 executed by opposite party No.1. Ex.A9 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 27-10-2004 executed by opposite party No.2. Ex.A10 Opposite party No.1 Pass Book No.25. Ex.A11 Opposite party No.1 Payment Receipt for Rs.10,000/- dated 26-11-2003. Ex.A12 Payment Receipt for Rs.10,000/- dated 26-11-2003. Ex.A13 Payment Receipt for Rs.5,000/- dated 26-11-2003. Ex.A14 Payment Receipt for Rs.12,000/- dated 29-02-2004. Ex.A15 Payment Receipt for Rs.2,500/- dated 29-02-2004. Ex.A16 Payment Receipt for Rs.12,000/- dated 29-02-2004. Ex.A17 Payment Receipt for Rs.5,000/- dated 17-11-2004. Ex.A18 Deed of Agreement Sale dated 14-10-2003. Ex.A19 Photo copy of Sale Deed dated 05-02-2004. Ex.A20 Photo copy of G.O. dated 01-09-2005. List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Ex.B1 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 03-12-2004. Ex.B2 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 20-04-2005. Ex.B3 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 06-05-2004. Ex.B4 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 03-12-2004. Ex.B5 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 09-12-2003. Ex.B6 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed. Ex.B7 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 17-11-2004. Ex.B8 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 13-11-2003. Ex.B9 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 17-11-2004. Ex.B10 Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 07-12-2004. Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987// Copy to:- Complainant and Opposite parties : Copy was made ready on : Copy was dispatched on : | 
