Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/11/43

K. Nageshwar Rao S/o K. Chenoji - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Balaji Estates,Represented by its Managing Director by name Sri R. Pratap S/o Narsimhulu - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M. Chennaiah Goud

29 Jul 2011

ORDER

  BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, the 29^th day of July, 2011 

                                           Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                                                            Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member        

                                                             Smt.D.Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

C.C.NO. 43  Of   2011

Between:-

K. Nageshwar Rao S/o K. Chenoji, aged: 38 years, Occ: Private Teacher,

R/o H.No.1-5, Amisthapur village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.        … Complainant

And

Sri Balaji Estates, Represented by its Managing Director by name

Sri R. Pratap S/o Narsimhulu, R/o H.No.9-2-254, Pedda Cheruvu road, Opp: Taj Function Hall, New Town, Mahabubnagar.  

                                                                                                                                       … Opposite Party

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 14-7-2011 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

                                                                                                         O R D E R

  (Sri P. Sridhara Rao, President)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to register the plot No.186 ‘A’ in respect of the scheme in Sy.Nos.49P, 53P, 54P, 55P, 56P leads to Jadcherla-Bangalore N.H.No.7 situated at Bureddypally and Malleboinpally sivar in Jadcherla Mandal or to pay present market value of the plot, and also to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, financial stress and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards  costs of the complaint.   

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The opposite party being the Managing Director has floated a housing plots scheme in the name and style of Sri Balaji Estates, Mahabubnagar in the land situated in Sy.Nos.49P, 53P, 54P, 55P, 56P leads to Jadcherla-Bangalore N.H.No.7 situated at Bureddypally and Malleboinpally sivar in Jadcherla Mandal.  The opposite party has canvassed the scheme with colourful brochures and appointed agents throughout district to canvass about housing plots scheme.  Believing the canvass made by the opposite party the complainant joined as a member in the said housing plots scheme through one G. Raju, agent of the opposite party.  The opposite party has allotted a lucky No.1283 to the complainant.  As per the terms of the scheme, the scheme period is for 60 months and the scheme was started from May, 2002 with an ending of May, 2007 and each plot is an extent of 20 x 65 Sq. feet or 150 Sq. Yards and its total cost is Rs.26,500/- and every member has to pay Rs.250/- per month and on every 6 months an additional amount of Rs.1,000/-.  After joining as a member of the scheme, the complainant has regularly paid all the total 60 monthly installments. The opposite party also collected an amount of Rs.8,000/- from the complainant on 20-5-2006 and reserved plot No.186/A. After completion of the payment of installments when the complainant approached the opposite party for registration of the plot, the opposite party requested the complainant to wait for some time on the ground that there was some dispute arose in the matter between him and the landlord and he will register the plot after settlement of the said dispute.  Subsequently even after the complainant approached the opposite party number of times the opposite party has not registered the plot and in the mean time, shifted his office to a different place. Such acts on the part of the opposite party amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.   

3. The opposite party filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stated that there is no relationship between him and the complainant as such the question of rendering service to the complainant does not arise, and that the opposite party is not having any liability to make register the plot as alleged by the complainant as this opposite party never received any amount for execution of the same and further the complaint is also bared by limitation and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-61.  On the other hand, the opposite party also filed his affidavit evidence in support of his contentions and got no documents marked. 

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1.  Whether is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as alleged?
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him? 

    (iii)  To what effect? 

6. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party being the Managing Director floated housing plots scheme under the name and style of Sri Balaji Estates in the land situated in Sy.Nos.49P, 53P, 54P, 55P, 56P leads to Jadcherla-Bangalore N.H.No.7 situated at Bureddypally and Malleboinpally sivar in Jadcherla Mandal.  It is also the case of the complainant that when he joined as a member in the scheme the opposite party allotted him lucky No.1283 and thereupon the complainant regularly paid the entire amount for all the 60 monthly installments besides making a payment of Rs.8,000/- on 20-5-2006 and got reserved plot No.186/A.  In support of his contentions the complainant relied upon the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-61 in token of receipt of the amount by the opposite party. The opposite party, except mere denial of the case of the complainant, did not challenge the genuineness of the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-61. The contention of the opposite party is that he never received any amount from the complainant for execution of the sale deed in his favour. That itself shows that the opposite party was ever ready to register the plot in favour of the complainant in case of the complainant making payment of the entire amount for all the installments as per the terms of the scheme.  Here is the case where the complainant had produced the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-61 to show that he has paid the entire amount as per the terms of the scheme for registration of the plot.  Therefore, we find that the contention of the opposite party that he never received any amount for registration of the plot in favour of the complainant is not tenable.  A perusal of the recitals of the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-61 clearly goes to show that they were all said to have been issued on behalf of the opposite party firm and further the opposite party did not challenge the recitals of Exs.A-1 to A-61.  Therefore, it is made clear by the complainant that he had paid the entire amount to the opposite party as per the terms of the scheme and the opposite party in turn not yet registered the plot in his favour till the date of filing of the present complaint.   

7. It is also the case of the complainant that the opposite party even after receiving the entire amount as per the terms of the scheme and though the scheme period was completed by May, 2007 the opposite party not registered the plot in his favour till date the circumstances of which forced him to file the present complaint.  It is the contention of the opposite party that since the alleged scheme period was completed by May, 2007 and the present complaint is filed on 18-2-2011 the very complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation and is not maintainable under law.  But we are unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that it is settled law that the period of limitation continues till the date of execution of the sale deed and possession of the land is delivered to the complainant.          As stated above, it is a fact borne out from the record that the plot is not yet registered in favour of the complainant and possession of the same was also not delivered to him till the date of filing of the present complaint. Therefore we find that the complaint filed by the complainant is within time, as such there is no force in the contention of the opposite party in taking such a plea.  So, it is clearly established by the complainant that the opposite party having received the entire amount from him ultimately not registered the plot in his favour. Hence, we find that the said act on the part of the opposite party in not registering the plot inspite of receiving the entire amount from the complainant amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant clearly established the grounds of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, as such he is entitled for the relief sought for by him together with some reasonable compensation and costs of the complaint.  Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.

8. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to register the plot No.186/A in Sy.Nos.49P, 53P, 54P, 55P, 56P leads to Jadcherla-Bangalore N.H.No.7 situated at Bureddypally and Malleboinpally sivar in Jadcherla Mandal and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint to the complainant within one month from the date of the present order.    

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of July, 2011.    

 

   I agree                                              I agree                                                        

 

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT                 

 

   Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Party:   

P.W.1: K. Nageshwar Rao                              R.W.1: R. Pratap           

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original Receipt, dt.22.5.2002.

Ex.A-2: Original Receipt, dt.8.6.2002.

Ex.A-3: Original Receipt, dt.10.7.2002.

Ex.A-4: Original Receipt, dt.6.9.2002.

Ex.A-5: Original Receipt, dt.6.9.2002.

Ex.A-6: Original Receipt, dt.10.10.2002.

Ex.A-7: Original Receipt, dt.5.11.2002.

Ex.A-8: Original Receipt, dt.4.12.2002.

Ex.A-9: Original Receipt, dt.5.1.2003.

Ex.A-10: Original Receipt, dt.4.2.2003.

Ex.A-11: Original Receipt, dt.5.3.2003.

Ex.A-12: Original Receipt, dt.6.4.2003.

Ex.A-13: Original Receipt, dt.11.5.2003.

Ex.A-14: Original Receipt, dt.14.5.2003.

Ex.A-15: Original Receipt, dt.4.7.2003.

Ex.A-16: Original Receipt, dt.3.8.2003.

Ex.A-17: Original Receipt, dt.6.9.2003.

Ex.A-18: Original Receipt, dt.7.10.2003.

Ex.A-19: Original Receipt, dt.2.1.2003.

Ex.A-20: Original Receipt, dt.14.7.2003.

Ex.A-21: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-22: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-23: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-24: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-25: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-26: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-27: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-28: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-29: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-30: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-31: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-32: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-33: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-34: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-35: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-36: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-37: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-38: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-39: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-40: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2006.

Ex.A-41: Original Receipt, dt.10.7.2006.

Ex.A-42: Original Receipt, dt.10.7.2006.

Ex.A-43: Original Receipt, dt.9.11.2006.

Ex.A-44: Original Receipt, dt.9.11.2006.

Ex.A-45: Original Receipt, dt.9.11.2006.

Ex.A-46: Original Receipt, dt.9.11.2006.

Ex.A-47: Original Receipt, dt.5.1.2007.

Ex.A-48: Original Receipt, dt.5.1.2006.

Ex.A-49: Original Receipt, dt.5.1.2007.

Ex.A-50: Original Receipt, dt.5.1.2006.

Ex.A-51: Original Receipt, dt.10.3.2007.

Ex.A-52: Original Receipt, dt.19.2.2007.

Ex.A-53: Original Receipt, dt.19.2.2007.

Ex.A-54: Original Receipt, dt.10.3.2007.

Ex.A-55: Original Receipt, dt.8.4.2007.

Ex.A-56: Original Receipt, dt.8.4.2007.

Ex.A-57: Original Receipt, dt.16.5.2007.

Ex.A-58: Original Receipt, dt.16.5.2007.

Ex.A-59: Original Receipt, dt.16.5.2007.

Ex.A-60: Original Receipt, dt.16.5.2007.

Ex.A-61: Original Receipt, dt.20.5.2006.

On behalf of OP.:                         

                                   - Nil - 

                                                                  

                                                                                                PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                              

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party.