Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/11/69

Munnur Ravinder S/o Late M. Krishnaiah, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Somisetty Venkateshwarulu S/o Late S. Venkat Subbaiah, Ganesh Real Estates (Regd.); Somisetty Re - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Munnur Ravinder

22 Feb 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

   Wednesday, the 22^nd day of February, 2012 

                                               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. 69  Of   2011

Between:-

Munnur Ravinder S/o Late M. Krishnaiah, age 53 years, Occ: Legal Practitioner, R/o H.No.42-252, Sri Krishna Nilayam, New Gunj, Beside RTC New Bus-Stand, Wanaparthy Town.                                                                                … Complainant

And

Sri Somisetty Venkateshwarulu S/o Late S. Venkat Subbaiah, Ganesh Real Estates (Regd.); Somisetty Real Estates (Regd.) & Sri Sowbagya Real Estates (Regd.), Office No.40-414, Upstairs, Eshwar Nagar, Kurnool – 518 004.  

                                                      … Opposite Party

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 14-2-2012 in the presence of Sri Munnur Ravinder, Advocate/Complainant, Mahabubnagar and Sri Yogeshwar Raj Yadav, 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 allotted plot bearing Nos.49/A & 49/B at Ganesh Nagar, Kurnool, and if plots not available to pay the estimated amount of Rs.8,00,000/- or market value by deducting the received under protest amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and to return the amount of Rs.12,000/- with interest of 24% p.a. from the last installment paid i.e., from the date of 14-12-1992 for the venture of Sowbagya Real Estates (Regd.) and to allot the plot at Somishetty Nagar, Kurnool. 

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant’s mother late M. Laxmidevamma @ M. Susheela joined in the housing plots scheme as member of opposite party’s venture introduced by name and style M/s Ganesh Real Estates vide Membership Nos.102 and 103, and in  M/s Somisetty Real Estates vide Membership No.74, on the advise and information given by elders that the opposite party was promoting housing plots scheme in the real estate business, even in Mahabubnagar district and trust worthy, believing the versions/sayings, the complainant’s mother joined in the above said ventures. Further she had also joined in  Sri Sowbagya Real Estates (Regd.) (Sri Venkata Subbaiah Nagar, Hyderabad) in the name of her grand son Mr. Rakesh Munnur vide Membership No.89 and paid the entire installments in all ventures without any interruption till theirs last subscriptions. On coming to know through intimations of the opposite party that the plot Nos.49/A and 49/B in Ganesh Nagar, Kurnool are allotted against Membership Nos.102 and 103, the complainant approached the opposite party for registration of the said plots bearing Nos.49/A and 49/B in his son’s name Mr. Rakesh Munnur and also requested for allotment of plots in the other ventures i.e., M/s Somisetty Real Estates, Kurnool and Sri Sowbagya Real Estates (Regd.), (Sri Venkata Subbaiah Nagar, Hyderabad).  The opposite party having promised to do so within three to four months due to some IT problems, and even after lapse of six months though the complainant continuously approaching the opposite party, but the opposite party postponed the matter on some pretext or other and ultimately expressed inability that the venture of Venkata Subbaiah Nagar, Hyderabad closed at initial stage due to land problems and the allotted plots bearing Nos.49/A and 49/B in Ganesh Nagar were registered long back to others due to insufficient land for allotment of plots to the members as excess of membership in that venture and the plot at Somisetty Nagar will be registered after a month and further the opposite party has offered to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- initially against all for which the complainant not accepted and demanded for registration of the said allotted plots. At that stage, the complainant having suspected the opposite party acts thought to receive the said offered amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party and he had received the same by way of a cheque under protest from the opposite party and on the demand made by the opposite party, the complainant has handed over all the receipts in regard to Ganesh Nagar, Sowbagya Real Estates and Somisetty Real Estates as there is no other way and later on got issued a legal notice to the opposite party demanding for the remaining balance amount for the plots bearing Nos.49/A and 49/B which are at present costs of Rs.8,00,000/- and if the plots are not available return of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest which has collected for the venture of Sowbagya Real Estates (Regd.) (Venkata Subbaiah Nagar, Hyderabad) and allotment of plot at Somisetty Nagar, Kurnool. The opposite party having received the said notice got issued reply notice denying the contents of the said legal notice and informed that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid towards full and final settlement and he has not concerned with the other ventures. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. The opposite party filed written version/counter denying the averments of the complaint and stated that according to the complainant his mother is the registered member of the housing plots scheme on her behalf and on behalf of her grand son Mr. Rakesh Munnur and further the said Rakesh Munnur has now attained majority and therefore the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and further the complaint is filed against the opposite party in personal capacity and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.  It is further stated that there is no truth in the case of the complainant that he received the cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- under protest, and that he had handed over all the receipts with regard to the three firms as there was no other way, but in fact the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant by the opposite party is full and final settlement on behalf of Ganesh Real Estates towards the account of Laxmidevi, as such the claim with regard to Ganesh Real Estates, Kurnool has been settled to the full satisfaction and the claim as to the Somisetty Nagar, Kurnool and Sowbagya Real Estates, Hyderabad is not concerned to this opposite party and the same has been clearly mentioned in the reply notice to the legal notice got issued by the complainant.  It is further stated that the opposite party has never arranged any agents to collect the monthly installments from the members from their residence at Wanaparthy, that the opposite party has received the installment amount of the firm Ganesh Real Estates, Kurnool at Kurnool only, and that the complainant taken such a plea only to rope in the territorial jurisdiction, as such there is no cause of action took place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  It is further stated that this opposite party is the partner of Ganesh Real Estates at Kurnool and floated the scheme for the sale of residential plots in which M. Laxmidevi joined as a member in the scheme for two residential plots, and that the scheme in which she joined as a member started on 1-4-1986 and the scheme is ended by 28-2-1989, the claim is hopelessly beyond the limitation of two years and the total amount paid by her for the said two plots is Rs.24,000/- (Rs.12,000/- each) and the said amount is received by this opposite party at his office situated at Kurnool, and that after completion of the scheme when the said Laxmidevi failed to turn up for several years, the said plots were sold to the others. It is further stated that finally in the month of August, 2009 the complainant came and informed about the death of Smt. M. Laxmidevi and claimed himself to be her son, the opposite party demanded for the death certificate and legal heir certificate from the complainant to entertain his claim and later on the assurance given by the complainant the installment amount of Rs.24,000/- + Rs.76,000/- as interest thereon by way of a cheque was refunded to the complainant towards full and final settlement and the complainant received the same on behalf of Smt. Laxmidevi without any protest and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.   

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and so also additional affidavit evidenced and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-17.  On the other hand, the opposite party in support of his contentions filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Ex.B-1.  

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether this Forum is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint?, If so,
2.  Whether the complaint is filed within the period of limitation?, and if so, Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him?  

    (iii)  To what effect? 

6. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that the office of the opposite party running in the name and style of M/s Ganesh Real Estates is situated at Kurnool, that Smt. Laxmidevi, the mother of the complainant joined as a member in the scheme for allotment of two plots and the said two plots are also located at Kurnool and the payments were also made to the office of the opposite party at Kurnool and therefore this Forum is not having any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon two decisions reported in   (1) 2000-CPJ-2-400 (G.D.A. Vs. Ravinder Kumar), (2) 2006-CPJ-1-583 (Vinayaga Agencies (Regd.) Vs. G.P. Seethapathy (Deceased)). On the other hand, the contention of the complainant is that his mother Smt. Laxmidevi during her life time joined as a member in the scheme run by the opposite party while she was at Wanaparthy, and that the opposite party arranged agents to collect the monthly installments from the members and like wise the authorized agents collected the monthly installments amounts from the complainant at their residence of Wanaparthy town, but the complainant never went to the place of the opposite party at any time to pay installment amounts of the said ventures and further the monthly intimation postal cards of the said three ventures were signed by the opposite party and sent to Wanaparthy in the name of the complainant’s mother and son and therefore the cause of action arose at Wanaparthy and hence this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  As per the very averments of the complaint and as well as the written version/counter filed by the opposite party it is an admitted fact that the opposite party run the housing plots scheme in the name and style of M/s Ganesh Real Estates situated at Kurnool and the plots are also located at Kurnool.  As far as the other two ventures are concerned even according to the complainant M/s Somisetty Real Estates is also located at Kurnool while the other venture i.e., Sri Sowbagya Real Estates is located at Hyderabad.  It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the opposite party is no way concerned with those two ventures.  Whatever the merits of the case in that regard may be but even according to the complainant the alleged one venture is located at Kurnool and the other venture is located at Hyderabad, while the office of the opposite party is admittedly situated at Kurnool.  So, the question that has to be seen now is whether this Forum is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint?

7. As stated above, it is the contention of the opposite party that he is not having any such agents at Wanaparthy for any purpose including for the collection of the installment amounts from the members residing at Wanaparthy. But the contention of the complainant is that the authorized agents of the opposite party collected the monthly installment amounts from the complainant at their residence of Wanaparthy town. If really there is any such truth in the case of the complainant the complainant ought to have added such authorized agent as a party to the present proceedings or at least filed the proof affidavit of such so called authorized agent in order to establish his contention, but the complainant failed to do so. That apart,  it is not such contention all of a sudden raised by the opposite party at the time of advancing arguments.  But the opposite party has taken such a plea at the earliest point of time itself while filing written version/counter. When such is the plea of the opposite party from the earliest point of time to the fact that he is not having any such agents at Wanaparthy, the burden lies on the complainant to establish the said fact but the complainant even during the pendency of the present complaint also not taken any steps to add the so called authorized agents as a party to the present proceedings and so also not at least tried to get the affidavit evidence filed by the so called authorized agent.  So, under the said circumstances, it can clearly be said that the ventures i.e., M/s Ganesh Real Estates and the so called Somisetty Real Estates are located at Kurnool while the other so called  Sri Sowbagya Real Estates is located at Hyderabad while the office of the opposite party is situated at Kurnool and so all the three ventures and the office of the opposite party are not located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

8. According to the complainant the cause of action arose at Wanaparthy as the opposite party arranged to collect the monthly installment amounts from the complainant’s mother at Wanaparthy. So, in view of the discussion in this regard made in the earlier paragraph of the order, we find that there is no force in the contention of the complainant. So, as stated above, it is a fact borne out from the record that the so called ventures and the office of the opposite party are not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence as rightly contended to by the learned counsel for the opposite party and in view of the principles laid down in the above said decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party and so also for the reasons stated above, we hold that this Forum is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

9. Since it is made clear by the opposite party that this Forum is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, we find that there will not be any need to discuss about the other aspects on the point of limitation, the relief sought for by the complainant etc., in detail and this Forum will not have any option except returning the complaint for its presentation before the concerned Forum having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.  The points are answered accordingly.                      

10. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is returned to the complainant for its presentation before the concerned District Forum having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.  No order as to the costs.  

         Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of February, 2012.    

 

     I agree                                 I agree                                                                 

 

   MEMBER                             MEMBER                              PRESIDENT                  

  Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                             On behalf of Opposite Party:   

- Nil -                                                                      - Nil -                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original Receipt, dt.14.9.1981.

Ex.A-2: Original Receipt, dt.17.1.1991.

Ex.A-3: Original Receipt, dt.16.12.1991.

Ex.A-4: Original Receipt, dt.15.10.1990.

Ex.A-5: Original Postal Receipt, dt.30.12.2010. 

Ex.A-6: Original Postal Acknowledgement.  

Ex.A-7: Original Bank A/c Pay-in-Slip, dt.3.8.2009.

Ex.A-8: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.29.12.2010.

Ex.A-9: Copy of Statement of Account, dt.23.3.2011.

Ex.A-10: Copy of Reply Notice, dt.6.1.2011.

Ex.A-11: Attested copy of Death Certificate, dt.16.3.1999.  

Ex.A-12: Attested copy of Family Members Certificate, dt.29.4.2002.

Ex.A-13: Copy of Authorisation Letter, dt.10.2.2011.

Ex.A-14: Copy of Statement of Marks, dt.29.8.1984.

Ex.A-15: Photostat copy of Sale Deed, dt.2.7.1994.  

Ex.A-16: Photostat copy of Sale Deed, dt.29.9.1992. 

Ex.A-17: Photostat copy of Sale Deed, dt.22.6.1992. 

On behalf of OP:                  

Ex.B-1:  Photostat copy of Statement/Receipt.   

                                                                                                                         

                                                                       

                                                                        PRESIDENT

       

Copy to:-

1. Sri Munnur Ravinder, Advocate/Complainant, Mahabubnagar.

2. Sri Yogeshwar Raj Yadav, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party.