BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD.
C.C.Nos.2/2010 AND 3/2010
Between:
1. Kuchakula Surendar Reddy
Parmus,New Jersey,U.S.A.
Hyderabad.
2. K. Sunitha,
Hyderabad.
And
1. Sikhahara
Hyderabad, being represented
Hyderabad.
2. K.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S/o.late K.Kista Reddy
Hyderabad.
3. R.Narasimha Reddy S/o.R.Satyanarayana Reddy
Hyderabad.
4. Jaligamma Prakash S/o.late J.Balaiah @ Balappa
5. Jaligamma Ramesh S/o.late J.Balaiah @ Balappa
6. Jaligamma Suresh S/o.late Balaiah @ Balappa
7. Jaligamma Ashok S/o.late J.Balaiah @ Balappa
Hyderabad.
Counsel for the Complainant: Mr.P.Raja Sripathi Rao
Counsel for the Opp. Parties :Mr.M.Durga Prasad-O.Ps 1, 4 to 7
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT SMT.M.SHREESHA,.
WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH,
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
i) Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque No.455868 ICICI Bank dated 5-7-06.
ii) Rs.5,00,000/- by cash on 22-6-2007
iii) Rs.10,00,000/- by cash on 24-10-2007
iv) Rs.5,00,000/- by cash on 24-3-2007
v) Rs.5,00,000/- by cash on 25-10-2008
vi) Rs.5,30,000/- by cash on 17-1-2009.
Totally Rs.40,30,000/- and also induced complainant in C.C.No.3/2010 and induced her to purchase flat No.504 admeasuring 1387 sq. ft.
i) Rs.20,00,000/- in cash under valid receipt dated 16-12-2006
ii) Rs.5,00,000/- by cash under valid receipt dated 10-1-2008
Totalling Rs.25,00,000/-. Hyderabad.
a) to hand over the schedule flat by completing the construction
in all perspectives so as to enable the complainant to complete the project being developed in the premises bearing No.3-6-369/22/A in street No.1, Himayathnagar,Hyderabad
b) direct the opposite parties to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the scheduled flat or
c) in the alternative to direct opposite parties 1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.40,30,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a.
d) to direct opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for their omissions
e) award costs of the litigation
f) pass such other further orders as this Commission may deem fi and proper in the circumstances of the case
In C.C.No.3/2010 to direct the opposite parties:
a) to hand over the schedule flat by completing the construction
in all perspectives so as to enable the complainant to complete the project being developed in the premises bearing No.3-6-369/22/A in street No.1, Himayathnagar,Hyderabad
g) direct the opposite parties to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the scheduled flat or
h) in the alternative to direct opposite parties 1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a.
i) to direct opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for their omissions
j) award costs of the litigation
k) pass such other further orders as this Commission may deem fi and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed counter and also written arguments contending that the complaint is not maintainable and admitted that that opposite party No.1, a registered partnership firm, entered into Development agreement and also agreement of sale with complainant in 2/2010 in respect of flat No.102 for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,30,000/- and entered into an oral agreement with complainant No.3/2010 in respect of flat No.504 for a total consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-.
Opposite party 3 filed counter as well as written arguments and admitted receipt of Rs.40,30,000/- Opposite party No.3 also denied the receipt of legal notice sent by the complainant and also stated that he has no knowledge of execution of sale deed which is pending before the Sub-Registrar and denied the other allegations made in the complaint.
Opposite parties
It is the complainant’s case that he purchased a flat 102 admeasuring 1700 sq. ft. from the opposite parties by paying an amount of Rs.40,30,000/- as evidenced under Ex.A1 sale agreement dated 24-4-2009.
2. That the seller/builder has agreed and shall complete the schedule ‘B’ property, flat No.102 on or before 31-12-2009 and the same shall be handed over to the seller.
It is the complainants’ case that the flat are still incomplete and the construction activity has stopped and inspite of several complaints and even a legal notice, dated 16-11-2009, (Ex.A3) opposite parties 1 to 3 have not commenced with the completion of the construction work.
inV.Kamala & Others v. A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION & OTHERS in 2010(3) ALD 548wherein it was held that a consumer complaint against land owners to enforce a agreement of sale entered by developer with complainant in pursuance of a development agreement between land owners and development is not maintainable and in such a case, the complainant cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ of land owners to maintain complaint for the relief claimed against them on the ground that there is no privity of contract and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
We rely on the decision of the Apex court inFAKIR CHAND GULATI v. UPPAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD., reported inIII (2008) CPJ 48 (SC)In the aforementioned decision, the apex court has clearly laid down that the dispute between land owner and builder also attracts the purview of Consumer Fora.
In clause 8 of the sale deed it is stated as follows:
8.The vendors and the developers/builders declare that the remaining work of the unfinished scheduled flat shall be completed within one year from the date of sale deed not only of the Flat No.102 but also the other work such as installation of generator, lift, water head tank, electrical fittings, plumber work, municipal water sump elevation, flooring and colouring etc. as specified in the development agreement.
Keeping in view the aforementioned clause, it is clear that the complainant has agreed for the flat to be completed within one year from the date of sale deed i.e. by 02-9-2011. Complaint against 4 to 7 is dismissed without costs as no deficiency in service can be attributed to them.
We reiterate, that the genuineness or correctness of Ex.B6, Registered sale deed, cannot be agitated before this Commission and the aggrieved party should approach theCivil Court. Opposite parties 1 to 3 shall also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for having delayed the construction, (as per the original schedule) together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
C.C.No.3/2010:
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted before this Commission that they are ready and willing to pay the balance of Rs.10,00,000/- within four weeks and sought for delivery of the flat No.504.
In the result this complaint is allowed in part directing opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to accept the balance amount of
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM
//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//
Witnesses examined for
Complainant:
Affidavit of complainant filed
.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant in CC No.2/2010:
Ex.A1 Agreement of sale dated 24-4-2009
Ex.A2 Receipt for an amount of Rs.40,30,000/- dated 24-4-2009
Ex.A3-Legal Notice issued by the complainant dated 16-11-2009
Ex.A4-Postal receipts of returned covers dt.17-11-2009
Ex.A5-Postal returned covers with acknowledgement
Ex.A6-Reply notice.
Ex.A7-Power of attorney.
Exhibits marked on behalf of opp.partiesin C.C.No.2/2010:
Ex.B1-copy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WPMP No.1276/2008 in
Ex.B2-Order copy of IV junior Civil Judge in IA 284/2008 in OS
Ex.B3-First Information report dt.24-8-2009.
Ex.B4-Order of Hon’ble High Court in CRLP No.7170/2009 dt.22-10-
Ex.B5-Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner Circle-GHMC vide
Ex.B6-Sale deed dated 2-9-2010.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant in CC No.3/2010:
Ex.A1 Receipt for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- dated 16-12-2009
Ex.A2 Receipt for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 10-1-2009
Ex.A3-Legal Notice issued by the complainant dated 16-11-2009
Ex.A4-Postal receipts of returned covers dt.17-11-2009
Ex.A5-Postal returned covers with acknowledgement
Ex.A6-Reply notice.
Exhibits marked on behalf of opp.parties in CC No.3/2010
Ex.B1-Copy of Partnership deed
Ex.B2-Sale deed copy dated 02-9-2010.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM
