.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
FA 1627/2007 against C.C.No.253/2007 on the file of the District Forum I, Hyderabad.
Between:
Lalitha Jagannath, W/o. N.V.Jagannath
Aged about 66 years, Occupation : Household
R/o.H.No. 4-5-908/1, Badichowdi,
Hyderabad – 500 195.
… Appellant
And
Narne Estates P Ltd.,
1, Gun Rock Enclave,
Secunderabad – 500 009,
Represented by its Manager
… Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. N.V.Jagannath
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. V.Henry
Coram : Sri JUSTICE D.APPARA RAO … HON’BLE PRESIDENT
And
Sri R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO … HON’BLE MEMBER
Thursday, the Seventeenth Day of December, Two thousand Nine
Order : (as per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
* * *
The complainant is the appellant. The appeal is filed challenging the order of the District Forum I, Hyderabad in C.C.No. 253/2007.
Briefly stated the facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that the appellant was the member of the respondent company with membership no.2686 for the purpose of allotment of plots. At first, the respondent offered plot nos 2 and 3 in Block AA of Sector III through letter dated 30.08.1991. After making payment of the entire amount, the respondent addressed a letter dated 11.4.1996 stating that the plots nos. 2 and 3 in Block AA were scheduled for development only. Alternate plots, plots no 37 and 38 in Block EE were allotted on 24.07.1997 in the year 1998, the appellant was offered plot nos. 6 and 7 in Block No. A of sector III, 500 Sq. Yards in respect of which registered sale deeds were executed in her favour. In the month of May, 2005, the son of the appellant N.G. Sunil Kumar visited the site and found that the plots were not traceable. The respondent on being approached by the appellant, offered alternate plots in sector III Block D plot No. 65 and sector III, Block H, plot No. 54. The respondent through letter dated 24.01.2006 demanded the appellant registration charges of Rs. 8,000/- per each of the plots. It was also informed that the respondent would bear the expenses and charges for cancellation of the registered sale deeds executed earlier in favour of the appellant. The appellant cannot be made to pay registration charges again. The appellant addressed letters dated 22.06.2006 and 28.10.2006 which are reminders of the appellants request to the respondent and also the appellant’s readiness to bear the registration charges. The respondent had sent letter dated 20.05.2006 to the appellant for repurchase of the plots for a meager amount of Rs.1,25,000/- per plot for which the appellant had not agreed to as she was planning to construct a building on two plots for herself and her family members. The appellant was put to harassment, mental agony and distrust in securing the two plots. Therefore the appellant claimed two plots, Plot No. 65 and 54 in sector III to an extent of 500 sq.yards, a sum of Rs.4 lakhs towards damages for mental agony, stress and trauma, along with interest at 18% thereon.
The respondent resisted the claim by filing counter and contending that on application of the appellant she was allotted plot Nos. 2 and 3 Block AA and in sector III. Later, at the request of the appellant the respondent allotted plot nos. 37 and 38 in Block EE, Sector III. On verification of which plots, the appellant did not like them and finally plot Nos. 6 and 7 in Block A Sector III were allotted in favour of the appellant and sale deeds were executed in her favour in the month of August, 1998. The appellant addressed a letter dated 1.3.2000 stating that she wanted to sell the plots and requested the respondent to arrange for sale of the plots at the rate of Rs.500 per sq. Yard. The respondent informed the appellant that they would charge 2% on the sale proceeds and 8 % to the agents who fetch the purchasers. Later on, the appellant complained that the plots were not traceable and that the site in-charge informed her that the plots were not properly numbered. Plotting was made after fixing the outer boundaries. It costs more to make survey and demarcation following the procedure for survey on the complaints of allottees on each and every plot as the project consists of 1500 acres. It was easy to allot alternate plots. The appellant by her letter dated 12.12.2005 complained about the location of the plots as also requested the respondent for allotment of alternate plots. i.e., plot nos. 65 in Block-D and plot no.54 in Block-H both in sector III. On receipt of the letter from the appellant, the respondent by letter dated 24.1.2006 requested the appellant to deposit registration charges for execution of sale deeds. The appellant was also informed to bear the costs for cancellation of earlier sale deed. The appellant by her letter dated 28.02.2006 agreed that she would pay the registration charges. Accordingly the respondent by letter dated 07.09.2006 informed the appellant that registration of the plot would be commenced at the end of September, 2006 and requested her to deposit registration charges. The appellant had not deposited the agreed registration charges. The registration charges were asked to be deposited to enable the respondent to prepare sale deeds which are ready to be executed on a day fixed by the appellant. The appellant has not performed her part of the contract and blamed the respondent. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The appellant has filed her affidavit and the documents Ex.A1 to A15.
On behalf of the respondent Ex.B1 to B7 were filed.
The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the respondent to execute sale deed in favour of the appellant in respect of the plot nos. 65 and 54 in sector III of East city, BIBI nagar, for a total extent of 500 sq. Yards.
Being dis-satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the appellant had filed the appeal contending that the District Forum was not correct in directing her to pay the charges of registration and also on the ground that the District Forum has not awarded any compensation towards damages for the harassment meted out to the appellant in changing the plots frequently. It was also contended that the respondent executed registered sale deed in respect of the plot Nos. 6 and 7 of which third parties were the owners.
The point for consideration are (1) whether the appellant is entitled to the registration charges and compensation and (2) to what relief.
Point No.1 : The dispute in a narrow compass is that the respondent for the first time was allotted plot Nos. 2 and 3 in Block AA of Sector III through Ex.A1, letter dated 30.08.1991. After making payment of the entire amount, the respondent addressed Ex.A3 letter dated 11.04.1996 stating that the plot nos. 2 and 3 in Block AA were scheduled for development only. The appellant was given option to remain in possession of the plots allotted to her or in the alternative she can opt for plots Nos. EE 37 and 38 in Sector III offered by the respondent. Having allotted the plot Nos. 2 and 3 which were bound to be kept for development, the respondent addressed a letter dated 24.07.1997 under Ex.A4 that as requested by her, plot nos. 37 and 38 in Sector III for an extent of 500 sq.yards was allotted to her to the effect sale deed was also executed in favour of the appellant for plot nos. 6 and 7 in Block A of Sector III, East City. Ex.A6 evidences execution of the sale deed, delivery of the possession of the plots to the appellant.
The appellant had issued notice dated 12.12.2008 Ex. A8 that plot nos. 6 and 7 were allotted to her which were not found in existence and could not be traceable when her son visited the spot and informed her that the plots in question were under the occupation of third parties. It was brought to the notice of the respondent that when the fact third parties occupying the plots was brought to the notice of the respondent, the respondent assured her that alternative plots, plot nos. 54 and 65 in Sector III would be allotted to her. The respondent demanded an amount of Rs.16,000/- towards registration charges from the appellant informing her that charges for cancellation deed would be borne by it.
The respondent relied upon letter dated 01.03.2000 addressed to them by the appellant, herein, it is stated that the appellant purchased plot nos.6 and 7 from the respondent for which sale deed dated 4.8.1998 was executed by the respondent. The appellant expressed here intention to sell the plots to any purchaser at reasonable price. The respondent had given reply. Ex. B3 on 02.03.2000 informing the appellant that they had noted in their resale register the resale of plot 6 and 7 by the appellant. It was informed to the appellant that charge 2 % of sale value towards service charges and 8 % of the sale value towards commission would be paid to the agents who fetch the customers.
The respondent expressed its readiness to execute registers sale deed in favour of the appellant for the plot nos. 65 and 54 in sector III. However, the appellant had not come forward to pay the registration charges to the respondent. There by, the proceedings came to a standstill. The version of the appellant is that the respondent offered her plot nos.2 and 3 in the first instance. Thereafter the plot nos. 6 and 7 which ultimately were sold and found to be in possession of the third parties. The respondent cannot sell a plot to the appellant knowing fully well that the plot under sale was in possession of a third party. Such an act on the part of the respondent amounts to unfair trade practice. In order to obviate the crises that was created by transfer of plots nos. 6 and 7 by the respondent in favour of the appellant without coming forward to deliver possession of the plots, the respondent had given option to the appellant to purchase plot nos 65 and 54 sector III, however, with a rider that the appellant has bear the registration charges while it would be the registration charges for cancellation of the sale deed executed earlier. It is not fair on the part of the respondent to sell the plots under the occupation of third parties to the appellant by executing registered sale deed and thereafter giving an option to the appellant to opt for the plot nos. 65 and 54 on condition that she should pay the registration charges. The appellant had already paid registration charges for the plots 6 and 7 and she cannot be directed to bear the registration charges again for the lapse on the part of the respondent. In the circumstances, we are inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that the respondent is liable to bear the registration charges for registration of the sale in respect of the plots 65 and 54 in Sector III.
Point No.2 : In so far as, the claim fro compensation is concerned, the appellant has not substantiated her contention as to how she is entitled to. The appellant had kept quite since the date of execution of the sale deed in respect of the plot nos. 6 and 7 in sector III in her favour and she had woke up only in the year 2000 citing the inspection of the plot made by her son who incidentally found the plots not in existence, in other words, he had found the plots nos. 6 and 7 sold in favour of the appellant, in possession of the third parties. The appellant if really was in need of a house has contended by her she would not wait for such long time even after the sale deed was executed in her favour. The appellant had not bothered to verify the very plots that were sold to her by the respondent. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the appellant. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed maintaining the order of the District Forum and in addition to the relief granted by the District Forum, the respondent/Opposite Party is hereby directed to bear the registration charges for registration of the sale deed in favour of the appellant/complainant in respect of the plots 65 and 54 in Sector III, East City, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
DATED: 17.12.2009.
