This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 14-03-11 in the presence of Sri C. Satya Narayana, advocate for complainant and of Sri S. Yedukondalu, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite party to register plots 365 and 368 in Group-I Subhodaya Nagar to an extent of 200 sq. yards each, Rs.50,000/- as damages towards hardship and mental agony and for costs.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint are these:
The complainant joined as a member in Subhodaya Nagar Group-I on 14-05-02 believing the representations of the opposite party and subscribed for two plots. The complainant paid Rs.5,000/- as 1st instalment and paid Rs.1,000/- as 35th instalment. The complainant has to pay Rs.40,000/- for each plot. The opposite party offered the complainant to give a discount of Rs.10,000/- if an amount of Rs.30,000/- per each plot was paid at lumpsum. The complainant thus paid Rs.70,000/- per each plot. The opposite party allotted plot Nos.365 and 368 and passbooks were issued accordingly. The complainant found office of the opposite party locked when he visited the office many a time. Sometimes employees of the opposite party gave evasive replies. Inspite of repeated demands and requests the opposite party is not coming forward to register the plot and deliver the vacant possession. Thus the opposite parties committed deficiency of service.
3. The contention of the opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:
One Gurrala Punnarao and his two sons are absolute owners of Ac.1.24 cents of land in D.Nos.338/1A, 338/1B situated at Pedapalakaluru village. On 25-03-00 the above persons entered into an agreement of sale with the opposite party and received Rs.1,32,000/- as advance on the same day. The opposite party agreed to pay the remaining amount within 15 months. The opposite party paid the remaining amount to his vendors. Vendors of the opposite party executed a sale deed on 19-06-03. An injunction order was passed against the opposite party in OS 383/03 on the file of Principle Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The opposite party in turn filed OS 171/05 on the file of Principle Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for declaration of title and for other reliefs. In view of the said litigations the opposite party is unable to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. Under those circumstances, the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.
4. Exs.A-1 to A-6 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 and B-2 on behalf of opposite party were marked.
5. Now the points that arose for consideration are:
1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. To what relief?
6. POINT No.1:- The complainant in his complaint and affidavit categorically mentioned that he was allotted plot Nos.365 and 368 in an extent of 200 sq.yards each and paid Rs.70,000/- per each plot plus Rs.10,000/- as discount totaling to Rs.80,000/- per each plot. The opposite party did not specifically deny the above contention of the complainant. It has therefore to be inferred that the complainant paid Rs.80,000/- per each plot. Ex.A-1 dated 03-12-02 revealed that the opposite party confirmed allotment of plots and issued Ex.A-5 and A-6 passbooks. As seen from Ex.A-5 and A-6 pass by The weDownload Manager">books
the last payment of Rs.1,000/- was made on 26-04-05.
7. On the otherhand, the opposite party contended that it did not execute registered documents in favour of the complainant in view of pendency of OS.No.171 of 2005 and OS 383 of 2003 on the file of Principle Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Any registered sale deed if executed by the opposite party during pendency of OS 171 of 2005 and OS 383 of 2003 will be hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Under those circumstances, the contention of the opposite party about it not executing sale deeds in favour of complainant is just and reasonable and did not amount to deficiency of service. Therefore this point is answered in favour of the opposite party.
8. If the complainant wants a regular sale deed in his favour during the pendency of OS 171 of 2005 he is at by The weDownload Manager">liberty to obtain sale deed by incurring registration expenses by serving a notice in writing in advance to the opposite party and the opposite party after receiving such notice should execute a sale deed in favour of the complainant within 15 days after receipt of such notice.
9. POINT No.2:- In view of the above findings, in the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs with an observation that the complainant can obtain regular sale deed if so desires by serving a notice in writing in advance to the opposite party and the opposite party after receiving such notice should execute a sale deed in favour of the complainant within 15 days after receipt of such notice.
Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS by The weDownload Manager">MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | 03-12-02 | Copy of plot confirmation issued by opposite party. |
A2 | - | Receipts issued by opposite party (40) |
A3 | 14-05-02 | Copy of payment schedule issued by opposite party in respect of plot No.365 |
A4 | 14-05-02 | Copy of payment schedule issued by opposite party in respect of plot No.368 |
A5 | - | Pass book bearing NO.302 |
A6 | - | Pass book bearing No.299 |
For opposite party :
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
B1 | - | Copy of plaint in OS.No.383/03 on the file of Principle Senior Civil Judge, Guntur |
B2 | - | Copy of plaint in OS.No.171/05 on the file of Principle Senior Civil Judge, Guntur |
PRESIDENT
