A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
FA 965/2008 against C.C.No.710/2007 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad.
Between:
M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd
No.1, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad – 500 009.
Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Col. N. Ranga Rao, S/o late N.V. Naidu ,
Aged about 63 years, … Appellant/Opposite party
And
Smt. A.Lalitha Reddy
W/o. A.T.V. Ramana Reddy
Aged 38 years, Occ: House wife
Military Hospital, Belgaum Camp
Belgaum, Karnataka State – 590 009 … Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K.B. Ramanna Dora
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. G. Allabakash
FA 966/2008 against C.C.No.711/2007 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad
Between:
M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd
No.1, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad – 500 009.
Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Col. Narne Ranga Rao, S/o late N.V. Naidu ,
Aged about 63 years, … Appellant/Opposite party
And
A.T.V. Ramana Reddy
S/o A. Rami Reddy
Aged 49 years, Occ: Central Govt, Employee
Military Hospital, Belgaum Camp
Belgaum, Karnataka State – 590 009 …… Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K.B. Ramanna Dora
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. G. Allabakash
Coram : Sri Syed Abdullah … Hon’ble Member
And
Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao … Hon’ble Member
Wednesday, TheTwenty Nineth Day of September, Two thousand Ten
Oral Order : (as per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member)
* * *
The unsuccessful opposite party in CC 710/2007 and CC 711/2007 filed these appeals against separate orders dated 07.12.2007 and 24.11.2007 respectively passed by the District Forum II, Hyderabad directing to register plot nos. 19 and 29 admeasuring 254 Sq. Yards, Block No BF & LL Sector IV and V, East City in the name of the respective respondent/complainant with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- towards damages and costs of Rs. 1000/-. This appeal is filed alleging the order as erroneous both on question of fact and law and therefore sought it to be set aside.
The facts in CC 710/2007 and CC 711/2007 are identically one and the same which are filed against the opposite party M/s.Narne Estates Private Limited represented by its General Manager ( Finance ) alleging that the opposite party offered to sell plots in its venture and in spite of payment of full cost of the respective plots and payment of the development charges failed to execute sale deed and the act or omission on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
The opposite party resisted the claim stating that total consideration for which plot was offered for sale was split up into three parts, viz,. (1) cost of the land, (2) cost of development works for providing infrastructural facilities like laying of Tar roads, providing underground sewerage facility, electricity etc and (3) Registration charges as per Government rate. It is stated that the complainant along with application form sent an amount of Rs.27,000/- towards basic land cost of the plot. The basic land cost was fixed at Rs.25,250/- after discount as she preferred to pay the basic land cost in lump sum instead of paying monthly installments. Excess amount Rs. 1,735/- was refunded through DD. The cost of the land is exclusive of the development charges and purchaser should pay development charges and also so pay registration charges. The opposite party requested the complainant to pay Rs. 33,750/- towards development charges and monthly intalments @ Rs.1,000/- tentatively per month. The opposite party by its letter dated 15.09.2007 explained all the reasons for increase of Rs,28,750/- towards development charges in view of development charges in view of various facts and issues involved in developing east City Residential complex. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence sought for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant in CC 710/2007 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. A1 to A5. Similarly, the opposite party marked ex. B1 to b10 in support of its stand.
The complainant in CC 710/2007 has sought for the relief of execution of registered sale deed in respect of plot no. 19, Sector V, Block –BG, admeasuring 250 Sq.Yards in East City and sought for payment of Rs. 59,000/- towards interest on the entire amount paid from 15.02.95 till the date of registration of the plot.
The complainant in CC 711/2007 has sought for a direction to register the plot bearing No. 29, Sector IV, Block –LL, admeasuring 250 Sq. Yards in East City of the opposite party venture and for payment of interest @ 12% on Rs. 44,000/- from 15.12.1993 till registration of the plot.
The complainant in CC 711/2007 along with evidence affidavit filed Ex. A1 to A8 and similarly the opposite party relied on Ex.B1 to b8.
After considering the respective documentary evidence and the contentions, the District Forum allowed both the complaints directing the opposite party to register the respective plots and also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- with expenses of Rs. 1000/-.
The appellant/opposite party in both the appeals has taken the stand that the complainants have still to pay developmental charges and registration charges. The opposite party cannot be attributed as deficiency in service or negligence. Apart from it, when time is not stipulated for performance of contract and where the time is not essence of the contract and the buyer does not issue a notice making time the essence by fixing a reasonable time for performance, if the buyer, instead of rescinding the contract on the ground of non-performance accepts the belated performance in terms of the contract, there is no question of any breach or payment of damages under the general Law governing contracts. So compensation awarded is without any basis and the award is liable to be set aside.
We have gone through respective documentary evidence filed by the complainants. There is no dispute that the complainant’s were enrolled as members for allotment of plots and accordingly they paid the land cost in lump sum. As seen from Ex. A2 as long back as on 15.2.95 the land cost was paid on allotment of plots. Even Ex.B7 and Ex. B10 dated 14.06.2003 and 14.09.2007 issued by the appellant/opposite party it is noted that the land cost plus development charges of Rs. 62,500/- plus Rs.25,000/- towards registration charges were paid by the complainant. There is no basis to show how additional development charges been arrived at to compel the complainants to pay the additional development charges as estimated by the opposite party. There is no evidence to show that the opposite party have been informing the complainants or any of the Members from time to time that development charges are due or that additional charges to be paid and their delay has prevented in developing the land. Tough the venture had commenced in the year 1995 till 2007, the opposite party failed to complete or develop it. The opposite party go on testing the patience of its members making them to wait up to uncertain period. The delay was on the part of the opposite party in not completing the project in time and thereby there was an escalation in the labour charges or cost of the material for which the complainants cannot be found fault. The District forum has rightly granted relied directing the opposite party in both the cases to execute sale deed in their favour. Compensation awarded at Rs.5000/- cannot be considered as unreasonable, in view of the fact that there are latches on the part of the opposite party in not completing the project within a reasonable time. Both the appeals are devoid of merits. No factual and legal infirmity can be seen in the impugned order for its interference.
In the result, both the appeals are dismissed confirming the orders of the District forum. There is no order as to costs. Compliance of the orders of the District forum within four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
DATED: 29.09.2010
