A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 104 of 2013 against CC 151 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy.
Between :
M/s. Janachaitanya Housings, Pioneer House,
2nd floor, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Sri Madala Sudhakar, rep by its
Authorized officer Sri K. Anjaiah .. Appellant/opp. Party
And
Smt. DVC Padma, W/o DVS Rama Rao
Aged about 42 years, Occ : Housewife,
c/o A. Shankar Rao, H. No.10-21: 15-98
Near Mandal office, Prakashnagar
Pendurthi post, Visakhapatnam, A. P. .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. M. Srinivasa Swarup.
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. N. Srinivasa Rao
FA 105 of 2013 against CC 152 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy.
Between :
M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd
Rep. by its Managing Director
Sri Madala Sudhakar, Vamsi Estates
2nd floor, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,
Rep. by their SPA Holder Sri K. Anjaiah .... Appellant/opp. Party
And
Sri A. Anku Prasad, S/o Tirumalaiah Naidu,
Aged about 53 years, Occ ; Teacher,
H. No.0-1-38/1A, Medical Colony
Bhadrachalam
Khammam 507 111 .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. M. Srinivasa Swarup.
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. N. Srinivasa Rao
FA 106 of 2013 against CC 153 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy.
Between :
M/s. Janachaitanya Housings, Pioneer House,
2nd floor, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Sri Madala Sudhakar, rep by its
Authorized officer Sri K. Anjaiah .. Appellant/opp. Party
And
Sri S. Atchutananda Rao, S/o Mallaiah
Aged about 65 years, Occ ; Rtd Teacher
H. No. 3-2-40/2, Plot no. 47, road no. 3/1,
Satavahana Nagar, L. B. Nagar,
Hyderabad. .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. M. Srinivasa Swarup.
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. N. Srinivasa Rao
FA 107 of 2013 against CC 154 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy.
Between :
M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd
Rep. by its Managing Director
Sri Madala Sudhakar, Vamsi Estates
2nd floor, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,
Rep. by their SPA Holder Sri K. Anjaiah. Appellant/opp. Party
And
Sri S. Sundara Murty, S/o Atchutananda Rao
Aged about 34 years, Occ : Employee
H. No 3-2-40/2, Plot no. 47, Road no 3/1,
Satavahana Nagar, L. B. Nagar
Hyderabad . Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. M. Srinivasa Swarup.
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. N. Srinivasa Rao
FA 108 of 2013 against CC 155 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy.
Between :
M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd
Rep. by its Managing Director
Sri Madala Sudhakar, Vamsi Estates
2nd floor, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,
Rep. by their SPA Holder Sri K. Anjaiah.. Appellant/opp. Party
And
Kota Srinivasa Rao,
S/o Seshagiri Rao
Aged about 49 years, Occ: Teacher
H.no.1-1-104, Near Ramalayam temple,
Brahemin street, Bhadrachalam post
Khammam district, A.P. . Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. M. Srinivasa Swarup.
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. N. Srinivasa Rao
FA 109 of 2013 against CC 156 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy.
Between :
M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd
Rep. by its Managing Director
Sri Madala Sudhakar, Vamsi Estates
2nd floor, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,
Rep. by their SPA Holder Sri K. Anjaiah.. Appellant/opp. Party
And
Smt. A. V. Siva Kalyani,
W/o Anku Prasad
Aged about 46 years, Occ : Housewife,
H. No. 9-1-38/1A, Medical Colony
Bhadrachalam – 507 111
Khammam Dist. A. P. .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. M. Srinivasa Swarup.
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. N. Srinivasa Rao
FA 110 of 2013 against CC 157 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy.
Between :
M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd
Rep. by its Managing Director
Sri Madala Sudhakar, Vamsi Estates
2nd floor, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,
Rep. by their SPA Holder Sri K. Anjaiah.. Appellant/opp. Party
And
K. Srinivasa Rao,
S/o Jayaramaiah
Aged about 46 years, Occ: Teacher
H.no.15-1-19/1, Seetharamnagar colony ,
Bhadrachalam – 507 112
Khammam district, A.P. . Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. M. Srinivasa Swarup.
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. N. Srinivasa Rao
FA 111 of 2013 against CC 158 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy.
Between :
M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Pvt. Ltd
Rep. by its Managing Director
Sri Madala Sudhakar, Vamsi Estates
2nd floor, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,
Rep. by their SPA Holder Sri K. Anjaiah.. Appellant/opp. Party
And
V. Ramakrishna, S/o Purnachandra Rao
Aged about 50 years, Occ : employee
H. Ho. 9-1-182/2D, Shantinagar
Bhadrachalam – 507 112
Khammam District, A.P. . Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. M. Srinivasa Swarup.
Counsel for the Respondent :
Coram ;
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
And
Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Hon’ble Member
Monday, the Twenty Third Day of September
Two Thousand Thirteen
Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )
****
01. These appeals are preferred by opposite party described above as against the orders dated 28.12.2012 of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District.
2) Since these appeals are preferred by the very same opposite party, and as common questions of fact and law are involved, we are of the opinion that all these appeals can be disposed of by a common order. FA 104/2013 is taken as a lead case. For convenience sake, parties as arrayed in the complaints are referred to here-under :
3.. FA 104/2013 :
The complainant joined in the venture, viz., “Sai puram” floated by the opposite party in survey Nos. 14,22, 23, 24(p), 29(p) of Kawadipalli Village and in Sy. No. 254(p), 255(p), 256(p), 259 (p), 260 (p) to 262 (p), 325, 331, 339(p), 367 (p), 368(p), 373(p), 377 to 382 (p), 405 of Taramathipet Village and in Sy No. 11(p), 12(p), 13(p), 58 (p) of Balajiguda of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for allotment of a house plot of 200 sq. yards under the scheme either to pay 50% on the date of enrolment and 50% within a period of 3 months and there from each square yard will be at Rs.650/- or in 15 monthly installments @ 750/- for Rs.1,50,000/- and that she paid Rs.1,30,000/- towards sale consideration in four instalments in between 24.12.005 to 25.03.2006 and that the opposite party also gave Pass Book No. 455 in that regard. Despite many requests for execution of a register sale deed, the OP had not obtained land conversion and the DTCP approval or at least not allotted the plot in the same venture. After receiving notice dated 05.06.2010 and a reminder on 13.09.2010 from one Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao of Bhadrachalam, who is her colleague, the opposite party after a long gap sent a vague reply dt. 27.09.2010 stating that they obtained draft permission and to visit their office for allotment of plots. But on their visit, the OP neither gave proper reply nor information nor refused to refund the total amount paid by them. Hence, she got issued a legal notice demanding to refund the total amount of all the colleagues Rs.13,10,000/- with interest @ 24% pa but the OP received the same but kept silence. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest @ 24% PA from 25.03.2006 till the date of realization, to pay compensation of Rs.65,000/- towards mental agony and hardship,.
4. OP filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under :
The complainant joined as a member in the venture as per Clause -4(a) of the terms and conditions of the application form and paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- under Pass Book bearing No. 455 as on 25.03.2006. As per clause 8 of the terms and conditions, the members are responsible to pay all development, betterment approval charges and other fees that may be levied by the local or urban development authorities. As per clause 9 of the terms and conditions, development charges have to be paid extra as fixed by the company. They never stated that the layout will be obtained within a fixed period as per clause 12 of the terms and conditions. Their company will not be responsible for the delays occurring in getting the layout of approval and registration of plot. They got layout approval from the concerned authorities on 08.03.2010 and they are ready and willing to register the suitable plot subject to payment of development charges of Rs.600/- per sq. yard. The opposite party already invested huge amount for payment of conversion fees, processing fees and development fees to the Government. Apart from that, OP also invested huge amount for physical development activities for layout roads, electricity and other facilities as per the norms of the DTCP. The time is not the essence of the contract to register the plot to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant is not entitled to refund of amount. The opposite party is not in a position to refund the amount if each and every member demanded for the same at this juncture.
5. Both sides filed evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings and Ex. A-1 to A-14 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B -1 and B-2 were marked for the opposite party.
6. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest @ 12% pa.to the complainant from 01.11.2007 till the date of realization, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint within 30 days .
7. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the opposite party filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Forum ought to have seen that Clause 12 of the terms and conditions that the time is not the essence of the contract for registration of plot and that the District Forum wrongly interpreted the clause 24 of the terms and conditions and that they are not in a position to refund the amount if each and every member of the said venture demanded as they have invested all the amounts towards procurement and development of the land and that the District Forum ought to have seen that the opposite party obtained approval from HMDA and that the said venture came under HMDA jurisdiction instead of DTCP authorities and that there is no deficiency in service on its part and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
8. Heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party with reference to the grounds of appeal in detail and the respondent/complainant submitted her written arguments.
9. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District
Forum is sustainable?
10. There is no dispute that the complainant has joined Member in the scheme floated by the opposite party to purchase 200 sq. yards of land in survey Nos. 14,22, 23, 24(p), 29(p) of Kawadipalli Village and in Sy. No. 254(p), 255(p), 256(p), 259 (p), 260 (p) to 262 (p), 325, 331, 339(p), 367 (p), 368(p), 373(p), 377 to 382 (p), 405 of Taramathipet Village and in Sy No. 11(p), 12(p), 13(p), 58 (p) of Balajiguda of Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for a total consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- to be paid in instalments as shown in Ex. A2 Pass book bearing No 455 and that paid Rs.1,30,000/- in four instalments
11. The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party did not come forward to execute registered sale deed in respect of the subject plot nor obtained required permission from the concerned authorities though she paid total consideration by 25.3.2006 and therefore the said lapses on the part of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and that the District Forum considering the material on record rightly ordered the opposite party to refund the amount so paid by her together with interest and costs and that the order is sustainable
12. Whereas the opposite party contended that as per the terms and conditions of Ex. A2 pass book , the complainant was aware of the fact that required permissions were not accorded in favour of the opposite party for registering the plot and that the opposite party was not responsible for the delay in getting the lay out approvals etc. and that with great difficulty the opposite party obtained approval from HMDA authorities as the Government changed the policy and the venture came under HMDA jurisdiction in stead of DTCP authorities and that they are ready to execute registered sale deed respect of the subject plot in favour of the complainant provided she pays the due amount including agreed development charges and that the District Forum did not consider the case of the opposite party in correct perception and mechanically passé order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.1,30,000/- with 12% interest so also costs and that the said order is not sustainable either in law or on facts.
13. As seen from the terms and conditions of Ex. A2 pass book it is clear that the opposite party informed the complainant beforehand that the lay out was not approved and that sale deed would be executed registered as soon as the lay out is approved and the complainant has to pay the sale consideration in terms of the said pass book. There is no dependable evidence from the side of the complainant that she has paid entire sale consideration as per the terms and conditions of the pass book. Probably since the lay out was not sanctioned the remaining amount was not paid by the complainant and by now the opposite party by putting all its efforts had already obtained the proceedings in Ex B1 and B2 issued by HMDA approving the lay out and therefore there is no hindrance for registering the plot in favour of the complainant. When such lay out permission was obtained there is no justification for the complainant in seeking refund of the amount. Because the OP had invested money on the said venture and it cannot survive if the invested amounts are ordered to be refunded. Since the Government changed the policy the venue came under HMDA jurisdiction from DTCP authorities and it is beyond the control of the opposite party. The complainant has consciously proceeded to obtain membership in the venture though by that time the lay out was not sanctioned and therefore she cannot find fault with the opposite party in the said context and allege unfair trade practice.
14. It is true in Ex B1 and B2 there is a direction to the opposite party to complete developmental works within period of one year and submit requisition letter for releasing mortgaged plots/area which is in favour of MCH/HMDA duly enclosing letter of MCH in regard to roads, open spaces , taken over by the municipality/Gram panchayat. It is not the case of the complainant that his plot falls in the said mortgaged area. The Op obtained layout permission from HMDA and mortgaged 25% of the area in favour of HMDA.
15. Therefore the objection of the complainant in the said context could not be appreciated. If the purpose of the keeping the property under mortgage by MCH or HMDA is to ensure the opposite party to undertake agreed developmental works. If the opposite party fails to undertake such developmental works certainly the HMDA will have right to auction the mortgaged land and from and out of the sale proceeds of mortgaged area they will undertake the developmental works and as such the apprehension of the complainant that the there is no developmental work in the venture could not be appreciated in her favour. It is much more so when there is no dependable evidence from her side in the said context.
16. In a similar appeal i.e. FA 210/2010 filed by the Appellant/OP herein, this Commission vide its order dated 11.01.2012 allowed the appeal modifying the order of the District Forum directing OP to obtain approval of the layout and execute sale deed in favour of the complainant on receipt of the amount due from her and when the layout approval was sanctioned in this case it would be just and reasonable to allow the appeal and modify the impugned order directing the opposite party to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the subject plot on receipt of the due amount, if any, from her. Thus point is answered accordingly.
17. In , FA 105/2013, FA 106/2013, FA 107/2013, FA 108/2013, FA 109/2013, FA 110/2013 and FA 111/2013, the plea and defences are similar as that of the lead case. Hence the discussion made supra is applicable to the said other cases also. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that all the said eight appeals are liable to be disposed of modifying the respective impugned orders accordingly.
18. In the results, the appeals in FA 104/2013, FA 105/2013, FA 106/2013, FA 107/2013, FA 108/2013, FA 109/2013, FA 110/2013 and FA 111/2013 are allowed and respective orders in CC Nos. 151/2011. 152/2011, CC 153/2011, CC 154/2011, CC 155/2011, CC 156/2011, CC 157/2011 and CC 158/2011 are modified directing the opposite party to execute registered sale deeds in respect of subject plots in favour of the respective complainants on receipt of amounts, if any, due by them as per the terms and conditions of the pass books issued in favour of the complainants. Parties shall bear their own costs throughout.
MEMBER MEMBER
DATED : 23.09.2013
