BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
FA 1478/2008 against C.C.No.168/2007 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
M/s.Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
No.1, Gunrock Enclave,
Secunderabad-500 009
Represented by its chairman &
Managing Director,
Col. N. Ranga Rao, S/o Late N.V. Naidu
Aged about 63 years
………. Appellant/Opposite Party
And
Smt. G. Sudha Rani, W/o G. Seshagiri Rao,
Aged about: 49 years, Occ: housewife
R/o H.No. 107, Ramakrishna Tower,
Nagarjuna Nagar, Yellareddyguda,
Hyderabad-500 073
Presently at Flat No.5, Sanali Heavens,
Nagarjuna Nagar, yellareddyguda,
Hyderabad-73
.. Respondent/ Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K. B. Ramana Dora,
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. M. Haribabu.
Coram: Sri Syed Abdullah ………… Hon’ble Member
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao ………… Hon’ble Member
Wednesday, the Twelfth Day of January, two Thousand Eleven
Oral Order : (As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member)
******
Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2007 passed in CC 168/2007 by the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad in directing the appellant/opposite party to receive developmental charges of Rs. 37,500/- and register plot no. 14 block R, sector IV, Bibinagar, Ranga Reddy District in favour of the respondent/complainant and to pay costs of Rs. 2000/- this appeal is filed assailing the order as erroneous.
The facts of the case are that the complainant joined as a member in the scheme commenced by the opposite party for sale of vacant plots and he paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- through a cheque bearing No.889756 dated 25.02.199 in respect of plot no. 72, Block –R , admeasuring 250 sq yards and membership fee also paid. A letter dated 14.10.1992 was issued allotting plot no.72 to the complainant. Subsequently by another letter dt.02.11.1992 informed another plot no.14 was allotted in the same sector. Entire consideration was paid. OP had to inform about the development of the land. But there was no intimation about the land. In February, 2006, the complainant visited the plot and found that small extent of land only was developed. OP promised to complete the development of the land. Subsequently the complainant made several visits. But there was no response at all. In February,2006 the OP sent a letter informing that denial of development as false. The OP sent a letter dt. 10.02.2006 enclosing a cheque for Rs.15,000/- informing that his allotment was cancelled and the amount paid was refunded. The complainant contacted the OP questioning for cancellation of the allotted plot without notice and the cheque was not encashed at all. On inquiry the complaint came to know that the OP is trying to sell away the plot to others. A legal notice dt. 18.12.2006 was issued. The act or ommission amounts to deficiency in service and thereby sought for relief.
The OP resisted the claim and admitted that on the application of the complainant a plot was allotted on payment of Rs.15,000/- plus Rs.150/- towards membership. At first, plot no. 72 was allotted and there after another plot no. 14 was allotted. The allottees are required to pay developmental charges as per the terms and conditions. The complainant was informed to pay developmental charges and civil work commenced in the month of July, 1994 itself. Development charges of Rs. 25,000/- had to be paid through installments @ Rs. 750/- per month. The complainant was informed in January, 1996 that a sum of Rs.14,250 was due towards developmental charges and that he should pay the same. The development was commenced phase wise. Most of the allottees paid the development Charges as and when the development was commenced. The opposite party invested huge amounts for developing the land. Several letters were addressed informing the complainant to pay the developmental Charges of RS.37,500/- due in total. The complainant failed to respond at all which shows negligence, so after waiting for ten days the allotment was cancelled and then the amount paid by her was refunded. So the complainant is not entitled for the relief at all.
During the enquiry before the District Forum the complainant along with evidence affidavit filed EX.A1 to A13 so also the opposite party filed evidence affidavit along with Ex. B1 to B10.
After considering the respective evidence and contentions, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the opposite party maintained silence with regard to non encashment of the cheque amount covered by Ex.A9. But however the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 37,500/- towards development charges and consequently an order was passed against the opposite party to receive the said amount and register the plot in question.
Point for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable?
There is no dispute that the complainant became a member of the venture for allotment of land which was developed by the opposite party way back in 1992 itself and the complainant had paid the cost of the land. it was agreed that as and when the land was developed the development Charges are to be paid. The OP has not produced any single acknowledgement of the complainant to show that Ex. B4 to B10 were actually served on the complainant. Ex B4 is letter cancelling the allotment of plot. The cancellation of allotment is also not proper. After all, The complainant had to pay only development Charges and when the complainant is ready to pay the amount there cannot be any objection to execute a sale deed and register the said plot in favour of the complainant. It is for the opposite party to explain as to why development could not be done till 2006 when the allotment of the plot was done long back in 1992. Considering the equities on both sides the District Forum passed the order which we do not find any irregularity to interfere with it.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 05.10.2007 passed in CC168/2007 by the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad. No order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
DATED 12.01.2011
