Present:Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member 

Sri G. Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),

                                                           Male Member

Monday the 7th day of February 2011

CC. No.  45 of  2010

Between:

M. Venkat Reddy S/o Muthyam Reddy,

Aged 46 years, Occ: Pvt. Service,

R/o 8126, J.P. colony, Patancheru (V & M),

Medak Dist.                                                                                       … Complainant

          And

Smt. Racharla Sujatha W/o R. Gnaneshwar,

Aged 45 yrs, Occ: Business,

R/o H.No. 12-99/4, Sri Sai Shiva High School,

Sree Nagar colony, Patancheru (V&M), Medak Dist.           ….Opposite party

This case came up for final hearing before us on 25.01.2011 in the presence of Sri. Ch. Bhoopathi, Advocate for complainant and opposite party in person, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following

O R D E R

(Per Sri P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)

                   This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to provide another plot in the place of plot No. 46 or to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards the market value of the plot as per the guarantee agreement executed by the opposite party and to direct to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.

                   The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:

1.                The complainant and the opposite party are well known to each other through the husband of the opposite party. The opposite party and her husband do plots business. In the year 1995 the opposite party stated to the complainant that she was the absolute owner and possessor of open plot No. 46 in Sy. Nos. 521 and 522 admeasuring 200 Sq. yards situated in Sai Prabhu colony at Muthangi Village of Patancheru Mandal and she has insisted the complainant to purchase the said plot for a cheaper rate of Rs. 14,000/-. Believing her version and because of the acquaintance the complainant agreed to purchase the plot and paid his hard earned money of Rs.3,000/- to the opposite party on 19.11.1995 as part of sale consideration against a receipt issued by the opposite party and her husband. They advised the complainant to come to the registration office on 22.11.1995 to get the plot registered in his name. Accordingly on the said date the complainant went to the registration office and by that time the opposite party was present there along with another person by name K. Srinivas. They informed the complainant that both of them have rights and title over the said plot and executed sale deed by  both of them and registered the said plot in the name of the complainant with document No,. 5219, dated 22.11.1995 and handed over the link documents to him on the date of registration itself. Subsequently the complainant paid Rs.6,000/- on 11.12.1995 and Rs.8,000/- on 18.01.1996 to the opposite party under separate receipts. Thus the total amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party is Rs. 17,000/-. In the year 2007 the complainant went to the Gram Panchayath Office Muthangi and applied for permission to construct a house and obtained permission on 08.02.2007 and started construction in the said plot. At that time a person by name Sai Reddy came there with his associates and obstructed for the construction stating that he was the real owner and possessor of the said plot and showed relevant documents to the complainant stating that he has purchased the said plot from the opposite party even prior to the registration in the name of the complainant. Immediately the complainant went to the opposite party and asked about the illegal transaction. The opposite party assured that she would provide another plot in the place of plot No. 46 to the complainant. Believing her version the complainant approached the opposite party many times, but in vain. On several demands made by the complainant the opposite party executed a guarantee bond in his favour on 17.03.2009 in the presence of witnesses’ viz. Satyanarayana, P. Srinivas Reddy, U. Ravinder, Gopal Reddy etc.  admitting that she has committed fraud and cheating towards the complainant while registering the plot no. 46 and agreed to repay the amount by the end of March 2009 as per the market value existing in that month.  The complainant has been demanding the opposite party for repayment of the amount but the opposite party deliberately stated cock and bull stories and failed to pay the amount, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony. Finally the opposite party refused to pay the amount and asked  him to do what ever he likes and denied even to provide another plot in the place of plot No. 46.Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding payment of the amount as per the guarantee bond dated 17.03.2009. The said notice was sent through registered post and under certificate of posting. The opposite party received the notice but failed to  pay the amount nor given any reply, which amounts to gross negligence and deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.

2.              The opposite party resisted the claim of the complaint by filing a counter to the following effect:

                   At the outset it is stated that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and the dispute is not a ‘consumer dispute’ as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. As the complainant herself alleged in specific terms fraud and cheating this forum has no jurisdiction. The alleged cause of action arose long back in the year 1995, but filing of the complaint is in the year 2010, hence the complaint is barred by  limitation. The opposite party and one K. Srinivas together sold open plot number 46 covered by  Sy .NOs. 521 and 522 admeasuring 200 Sq. yards situated in Sai Prabhu Colony of Muthangi village to the complainant for a valid sale consideration of Rs. 14,000/- and conveyed and transfered the property in his favour by way of sale deed with document No. 5219 of 1995 dated 22.11.1995.  She handed over link documents to the complainant much prior to the registration of the plot. There was no occasion for the opposite party or Mr. K. Srinivas to receive Rs.17,000/-. Such allegations are made to gain sympathy of this forum. The complainant seems to have invented documents forging the signatures of the opposite party. Only after due verification of the title the complainant entered into the sale transaction in the year 1995 and the opposite party and K. Srinivas delivered title to the complainant. The opposite party never executed any guarantee bond or otherwise in favour of the complainant and hence the question of her committing fraud and cheating does not arise. Such allegations seem to have made to bring the complaint within the limitation. The opposite party never received any notice and hence the question of committing gross negligence and deficiency of service does not arise. The dispute of the complainant is of civil nature and hence the complaint maybe dismissed with exemplary costs.

3.                Both parties filed their evidence affidavits and Exs. A1 to A13 are marked on behalf of the complainant, to prove their respective contentions. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party. On behalf the complainant written argument are not filed no oral arguments are advanced. Opposite party filed her written arguments and requested to treat them as her oral arguments. Perused the record.

4.                The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for direction to the opposite party to register a plot in his name in the place of plot no. 46, in the alternative for payment of Rs.3, 00,000/- towards the value of the plot and for compensation and legal expenses as prayed for?

Point:

5.                The case of the complainant is that on 19.11.1995 he has purchased plot No. 46 situated in Sai Prabhu Colony Muthangi village from the opposite party for Rs. 14,000/- for which a sale deed was executed by the opposite party along with one K. Srivas and both of them registered the sale deed as  owners of the said plot. It is his further case that during 2007 he wanted to construct a house in the plot and applied to the Grampanchayat office Muthangi for permission and obtained permission on 08.02.2007 and when he started constructing the house a person by name Sai Reddy came and obstructed for the construction stating that he has purchased the said plot from the opposite party even prior to the registration of the plot in the name of the complainant and showed the registered document executed by the opposite party in his favour and there upon the complainant went to the opposite party and asked her, for which she has stated that she would provide another plot  in his name but she failed to do so inspite of several demands and finally on 17.03.2009 she has executed a guarantee bond for payment of  value of plot as per the market rate existing in March 2009 but failed to pay the amount. The market value of the plot in March 2009 was Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore the complaint is filed. The opposite party admits execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant but denies execution of the alleged guarantee bond and contented that the said allegation is invented to bring the complaint within limitation. According the opposite party the alleged guarantee bond is forged. She also denied receipt of Rs. 17,000/- as alleged in the complaint and stated that the said receipts are also forged. According to the opposite party the complainant is not at all a ‘consumer’ and there is no ‘consumer dispute’ as such. Even other wise the complaint is barred by limitation and the alleged dispute is of civil nature which can be decided by civil court and hence this forum has no jurisdiction.

6.                The documents marked on behalf of the complainant are Ex.A1is haamee Patram (Guagrantee bond), Exs.A2 to A4 are receipts, Ex.A5 is  registered sale deed together with sketch of the plot, Ex.A6 is receipt issued by panchayath, Ex.A7 is proceedings of Grampanchayath, Ex.A8 is Market value assistance issued by the sub-registrar, Ex.A9 is encumbrance certificate, Ex.A10 is legal notice, Ex.A11 is postal registration receipt, A12 is certificate of posting and Ex. A13 is postal acknowledgement.

7.                The complainant purchasing plot No. 46 situated in Sai Prabhu colony, Muthangi village from the opposite party and obtaining Ex. A5 registered sale deed on 22.11.1995 from the opposite party and one K. Srinivas are not in dispute. The contention of the complainant is that he obtained permission on 08.02.2007 from Gram Panchayath office for construction of house and when he started construction one Sai Reddy of the village came and objected for the construction alleging that he has purchased the said plot from the opposite party even prior to the purchase by the complainant and when he asked the opposite party she has stated that she would provide another plot to him. There by the complainant came to know that the opposite party committed fraud and cheated him in  selling the plot to him which was already sold to Sai Reddy, and the same is confirmed when she agreed to pay the value of the plot which was existing in March 2009 but failed to pay. When the complainant himself alleged in his complaint that the opposite party committed fraud and cheating this forum does not get jurisdiction to decide such cases. This view is fortified by the ratio in the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission while deciding the case of R.R. Gopal @ R. Rajagopal vs. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 1996 (1) CPR 60. It is stated in paragraph 10 of the  said decision as follows: “The legislature by using the words ‘deficiency’ and ‘negligence’ clearly intended that the remedy for intentional malicious acts are out side the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums under the Act”. Therefore in view of the said decision it has to be held that this complaint is not maintainable in this forum.

8.                 Even though the complainant has stated that    the opposite party has executed Ex.A1 guarantee deed in the presence of witnesses viz.  1. Satyanarayana, 2. P. Srivinas Reddy 3. Ravinder 4 Gopal Reddy etc., having agreed to pay the value of the plot existing in March 2009, the opposite party denied execution of the said document and alleged that the signature of the executant there in is forged. On a comparison of the signatures of the opposite party available in the record in her counter, evidence affidavit and written arguments with the disputed signature in Ex. A1 the said disputed signature does not tally with the signatures of the opposite party. (Ex.A1 contains witness signatures of Satyanarayana, Gopal Reddy and P.S. Reddy. Even though a provision is made by mentioning serial No. 4 under the head ‘witnesses’ there is no signature against it.). When the opposite party denies execution of Ex.A1 and contended that the said document forged, complainant should have filed evidence affidavits of the said witness in support of his contention that Ex. A1 was executed by the opposite party. But the complainant has not filed any evidence affidavits except his own affidavit which is self serving.

9.               The admitted case of both parties is that the sale transaction was for Rs. 14,000/-. But according to the complainant he has paid Rs. 3,000/- ,Rs.6,000/- and Rs. 8,000/-  under Exs.A2, A3 & A4 receipts. Therefore according to the complainant within a period of two months he has paid Rs. 17,000/- to the opposite party towards sale consideration. It is not known as to why the complainant has paid Rs. 3,000/-  more than the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 14,000/-. Moreover the signatures in Ex. A1 to A4 are not at all those of the opposite party. Because Ex. A2 to A4 contain the name of the husband of the opposite party, the said signatures may be those of the husband of the opposite party, who is not a party to the transaction or in this case.

10                The counter and evidence affidavit of the opposite party are silent about the allegations of the complainant that one Sai Reddy came and objected for construction in the plot alleging that he purchased the said plot from the opposite party even prior to the purchase by the complainant and when the complainant asked the opposite party she has stated that she would provide another plot to him. Therefore it appears that the opposite party is not disputing the correctness of the said statement. The complainant has not made the said Sai Reddy as a party to this complaint.

11.             As genuineness of guarantee deed Ex. A1 is in dispute and as the complainant failed to prove it’s execution the said document cannot be relied upon. When the said document cannot be relied upon the cause of action goes back to the date of registration of sale deed i.e, 22.11.95 which is 15 years prior to filing of the complaint. Thus the complaint is not with in the period of limitation. In view of the discussion supra especially because of the allegations of fraud and cheating, the complainant is not maintainable in this forum. Even otherwise Ex.A1 guarantee deed is not proved. It is therefore held that complainant is not entitled to any reliefs prayed for. The point is answered against the complainant.

12.             In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

                    Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this   7^th  day of February, 2011.

         Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                              Sd/-

  PRESIDENT                       LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For the complainant:                                             For the opposite party:

-Nil-                                                                               -Nil-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the  complainant:                                             For the opposite party:

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

Copy to:

1. The Complainant
2. The Opp.Party
3. Spare copy                    Copy delivered to the Complainant/

Opp.Party On ___________

                                                          Dis.No.         /2011, dt.