BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

R.P.No.6/2013 to 9/2013 and R.P.No.12/2013 against I.A.Nos.131/2012 to 134/2012 & I.A.No.143/2012 in S.R.No.1526/2012, 1522/2012, 1524/2012, 1567/2012 and 1471/2012 District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam.

Between

1.   M/s.Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager, situated at

D.No.43-9-38, II floor, Railway New Colony

Visakhapatnam.

2.   M/s.JanaChaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,

Situated at D.No.4-5-29/66, 4^th lane

Vidyanagar, Guntur-522 006.                 Petitioners/Respondents in

                                                                   R.P.Nos.6 to 9 and 12/13

          And

1.   Smt.Keelu Padmavathi

        W/o.Chandra Kumar,

        Hindu, aged 42 years,

        Residing at D.No.26-221, Sanjeevagiri

        Colony, B.C.Road, Gajuwaka

        Visakhapatnam.                                        Respondent/Complainant in

                                                                                      R.Ps. 6, 7 & 9/13

    2. Sri Keelu Chandra Kumar

        S/o.Subrahmanyam

        Hindu, aged 46 years,

        Residing at D.No.26-221, Sanjeevagiri

        Colony, B.C.Road, Gajuwaka

        Visakhapatnam.                                       Respondent/Complainant in

                                                                                      R.P. 8/13

   3. Sri B.Louies,

       S/o.late Joseph Bastin

      Christain, aged 41 years,

      Residing at D.No.13-405/1

      Sector II, Arilova,

      Visakhapatnam.                                       Respondent/Complainant in

                                                                                      R.P.12/2013

Counsel for the Petitioners     :  M/s Ch.Vasanth Kumar.

(Common in all R.Ps.)

Counsel for the Respondents:    Mr.R.Venkata Ramana in

              R.Ps 6,7,8 & 9/13

              Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao in RP 12/13

QUORUM:  SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE Incharge President

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Incharge President)

***

Since  these  batch of R.Ps. deal with similar facts, they are being disposed of by a common order:

R.P.No.6/2013

This revision petition is preferred by opposite parties aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.131/2012 in SR 1526/2012.

 The complainant joined as a Member in the opposite parties venture and paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- on 13-9-1998 together with Rs.100/- as membership fee for which pass book was issued and plot No.146 was allotted to her on 27-2-2012.  By 02-5-2002 the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- and made the last instalment on 20-6-2002 and thereafter it is the complainant’s case that the opposite parties did not send anybody to collect the amounts even though she was ready to pay the balance sale consideration and therefore sought a direction in the main CC to repay the amount with interest, compensation and costs.  The complainant filed the I.A.  to condone the delay of  2934 days in  filing the complaint on the ground that the opposite parties made her run from pillar to post on every occasion and did not collect the monthly instalments and dragged the matter inspite of several requests. 

The District Forum taking into consideration that the complainant paid part consideration and that the plot was allotted had condoned the delay of 2934 days on condition of payment of costs of Rs.400/- and aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties preferred this revision petition.

As part of the sale consideration has already been paid and plot has been allotted and the respondent has neither cancelled the allotment of plot nor issued any notice to the complainant, we are of the considered view that there is continuing cause of action and Article 54 of the limitation Act reads as follows:

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows:

“For Specific performance of a contract:

Three years

The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”

The District Forum has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in condoning the delay as the complainant has given sufficient and cogent reasons and also it can be construed as continuing cause of action, keeping in view that the respondents/opposite parties have not cancelled the allotment by way of issuing any notice,  as contemplated under Article 54 of Limitation Act. 

The learned counsel for the petitioners/O.Ps has filed a memo in R.P. Nos.10/13 and 11/13 settling the matters and time was sought for settling  the balance matters also but we observe that despite this lapse of time, the petitioners/opposite parties have not come forward with any such settlement. R.P.Nos.6,7,8, 9 and 12 of 13 are therefore being disposed of by this Common order.

For the aforementioned reasons, this petition is dismissed and the District Forum shall dispose of the C.C. in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides. There shall be no order as to costs.

R.P.Nos.7 to 9 and 12/2013

For the same reasons as stated in R.P.No.6/2013 these petitions are dismissed and the District Forum shall dispose of the C.Cs. in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                        INCHARGE PRESIDENT.

                                                        MEMBER.

JM                                                     Dt.15/5/2013.