BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.20/2009 AGAINST E.A.No.36/2006 in C.C.No.21/2007 DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD..
Between:
M/s Siva Sai Builders and Developers
(P) Ltd., represented by its
Managing Director
Smt.B.H.Bhaskara Lakshmi, W/o.B.H.Srinivas,
R/o.1-9-318/5, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. Appellant/
And Respondent/
Opp.party
Smt.T.Suvarna, W/o.T.Vishnu Murthy
Aged about 52 years, Occ:House wife,
R/o.H.No.3-4-856, Flat No.402,
Vasantha Enclave, Barkatpura,
Hyderabad. Respondent
Petitioner/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.S.Agasthya Sharma
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.T.Bal Reddy
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member.)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.1082/2005 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad the complainants preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out are that E.A.No.36/2008 was filed during the pendency of the appeal, F.A.No.1771/2007 and a notice was issued to the J.Dr./opposite party and the opposite party contended that the State Commission passed an order on 22-10-2008 setting aside the order of the District Forum with regard to the relief directing the opposite parties to register the plot and as per the order, it is only liable to pay interest at 18% p.a. on the amount. In the meantime on 31-12-2008 the complainant moved an R.P. before the National Commission and the opposite party filed his objections stating E.A. was filed during the pendency of the appeal and when the relief was set aside, this petition is not maintainable. It was further stated that registration of the plot (flat) constitutes the main relief in the awarded passed by the Forum and when the main relief was set aside, the question of delivering vacant possession of the plot(flat) does not arise and also the contention of the complainant that she is ready to pay the balance sale consideration is unwarranted and the claim of interest at 18% is un-executable and prayed to dismissed the E.A.
To appreciate the respective contention, it is necessary to go through the relief’s given by the District Forum as also that of this Commission and National Commission.
The District Forum by its order directed the opposite party to register the flat bearing No.302 in 3rd floor, total area admeasuring 912 sq. ft. bearing municipal No.2-27/5/B, admeasuring 371 sq. yds. situated near Vidyanagar Bridge, adjoining to Osmania University, Adikmet, Hyderabad after receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,90,000/- from the complainant and also the opposite party is directed to pay interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.7,60,000/- with effect from 04-8-2006 the date of which the opposite party was supposed to deliver the flat to the complainant together with Rs.15,000/- punitive damages and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
The State Commission allowed the appeal FA No.1771/2007 and set aside the order of the District Forum with regard to direction to register the flat while confirming the other aspects.
As the relief to register the flat in question was set aside by the State Commission, the complainant filed a revision before the Hon’ble National Commission and the National Commission held that in the complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum no relief whatsoever has been sought in respect of direction for registration of the flat but a relief was sought relating to vacant possession of the flat along with other reliefs and held that the State Commission has rightly modified the order of the District Forum with regard to direction to the opposite party to register the flat and the said part of the order was set aside.
The District Forum held that both the National Commission and State Commission have observed that the complainant has specifically pleaded to direct the opposite party to hand over possession of the flat 302 (IIIrd) floor but has not pleaded to register the flat and therefore directed the opposite party to deliver possession of the flat No.302 and accordingly allowed the E.A.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the question of delivery of the possession of the flat in question arises only in the event of registration of sale deed in the complainant’s favour as envisaged in Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1906. He further contended that as per orders dated 3-10-2008 in F.A.No.1717/2007 passed by the State Commission and the subsequent order dated 21-11-2008 in R.P.No.4481/2008 by the Hon’ble National Commission confirming the order of the State Commission, the formality of execution of sale deed in favour of the complainant by the opposite party in respect of the flat in question is ruled out and as such the learned Members of the District Forum are not justified in passing the order dated 6-1-2009. He further contended that the land area of 371 sq. yds. reflected in schedule property ‘A’ is not existing or subsisting and the land area is only 285 sq. yds. The signatures on the alleged receipts dated 3-9-2005, 5-10-2005, 15-10-2005 and 25-11-2005 do not pertain to them. The alleged agreement of sale does not contain the exact plinth area, does not contain any specifications of the flat, signature of Smt.P.Suvarna is only on the last page and that the alleged agreement of sale in schedule property ‘B’ does not contain any parking area. It is the case of the appellant that when the receipt for Rs.7,60,000/- itself is disputed, the question of them receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,90,000/- and to pay interest of 18% on Rs.7,60,000/- does not arise. It is their further case that the direction in E.A.36/2008 to deliver vacant possession of the alleged flat No.302 within 7 days is contrary to law.
We observe from the record that the District Forum in C.C.No.21/2007 dated 20-9-2007 directed the opposite party to register flat No.302 in the third floor admeasuring 912 sq. ft. bearing municipal No.2-2-7/5/B admeasuring 371 sq. yds. or 310.15 sq. mtrs. after receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,90,000/- from the complainant and also there is a direction from the District Forum to the opposite party to pay interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.7,60,000/- with effect from 04-8-2006, the date on which the opposite party was supposed to deliver the flat to the complainant, together with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Aggrieved by this order, opposite party preferred 1771/2007, which was allowed in part by the State Commission modifying the order of the District Forum with respect to setting aside the registration of the flat while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum.
Aggrieved by this order, the complainant/petitioner preferred R.P. and the National Commission confirmed the order of the State Commission. Thereafter E.A.NO.36/2008 was preferred in C.C.No.21/2007 for execution of the order. This order is dated 6-1-2009 and the order in R.P.No.4481/2008 is dated 21-11-2008. It is pertinent to note that E.A.36/2008 has been ordered on 6-1-2009 directing the opposite party to deliver vacant possession of flat No.302 within 7 days and also to comply with other relief’s ordered by the District Forum. It is pertinent to note that the order of the District Forum is modified by the State Commission which has been confirmed by the National Commission by order dt.21-11-2008 in R.P. No.4481/2008 and the order of this Commission has become final. Hence the contentions of the appellant with respect to merits cannot be taken into consideration as the order has become final.
Accordingly this appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.11-6-2010
