Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/428/2011

Visakha Consumers Educational And Service Society - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Surya Constructions - Opp.Party(s)

Sontyana Mohan Rao

09 Jun 2015

ORDER

Reg. of the Complaint:09-11-2011

                                                                                                                                      Date of Order:09-06-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

TUESDAY, THE 09^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.428/2011

 

BETWEEN:

Visakha Consumers Educational & Service Society,

Rep. by its President, Mr.Chapa Kumar,

S/o Chapa Appalanarasayya, Hindu, aged 62 years,

D.No.43-11-13, Subbalakshmi Nagar,

Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam-16.

…Complainant

AND:

1. Sri Surya Constructions, Rep. by its

Proprietor Sri Telu Venakta Surya Ramesh, S/o T.V.Satyanarayana,

Hindu, aged about 38 years, R/at D.No.25-10-10,

Nallavari Street, Kurupam Market, Visakhapatnam.

2.Shankara Mantri Ramakrishna Satya Rao, S/o late Satyanarayana,

Hindu, aged about 44 years, R/at Sector 10, Qtr. No.402/A,

Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam-530 032.

…Opposite Parties

This case coming on 26-05-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI SONTYANA MOHANA RAO, Advocate for the Complainant, and of              SRI N.VENUGOPALA RAO, Advocate for the Opposite Parties, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

ORDER

 (As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)                                                                              

1. The Complainant filed the present complaint against the OPs, directing them to refund an amount of Rs.10,25,000/- with interest from the respective dates of payment till the date of realization, compensation of Rs.9,75,000/- with costs.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that it is a reputed organization doing services such as motivating and adjudicating the consumers at large and taking up their grievance to solve their disputes amicably and the defacto complainant has given a complaint against the OP for its deficiency of service and requested to take up the issue and solve the problem on that they approached OP but they did not show any interest in solving problem.
3. That the defacto complainant Ginne Adi Lakshmi has agreed to purchase Flat No.1 and 6 of Rajupalem, Lankelapalem SRO., Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam  and paid amounts on different dates for which they passed receipts when  the defacto complainant demanded OP for register the sale of flats and the Agreement of Construction. Finally, the 1^st OP got executed registered sale deed on 15-05-2010 and further executed a construction agreement on the same day and promised to execute similar sale deed and construction agreement for flat no.6 when the defacto complainant demanded OP-1 either complete the construction or to refund the amount of OP1 has changed his mind and executed an agreement on 24-11-2010 admitting the payments upto to Rs.9,44,000/- and agreed to refund the amount within 31-12-2010 but failed to fulfill this agreement also. He totally paid an amount of Rs.5,05,000/- fort flat No.1, Rs.4,40,000 for flat no.6, inspite of promising to register both the flats, the OP failed to register the second flat and failed to give receipts for Rs.80,000/-. Hence, this complaint.
4. The case of the OP, denying the material averments of the complainant is that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as no scrap of paper is filed by him to substantiate the averments in respect to the defacto complainant  and on that ground alone, the complainant is liable to be dismissed. By simply affixing of the same representing a society cannot by itself authorized the complainant to receive and lodge the complaint on behalf of the defacto complainant as such, the complainant has to prove the authenticity of the complaint for prosecuting the complaint on behalf of the defacto complainant who has not even signed the complaint nor shown as a party to it.
5. That the defacto complainant has agreed to sell away the fats to him in his personal capacity on 24-12-2010 for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,74,000/- and received a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and the time for registration is fixed for 30 months. The Defacto Complainant has also agreed to receive the balance sale consideration  Rs.5,24,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed but the defacto complainant by suppressing the above fact got filed the present complaint. The defacto complainant having entered into sale consideration, cannot invoke the agreement and the receipts issued in his favour and that too filing of the complaint before 30 months period as stipulated in the sale agreement and on that score alone, the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
6.  The complainant filed rejoinder alleging that the defacto  complainant did not execute any agreement dated 24-12-2010 and the same is fabricated  by OP. The OP did not pass any consideration much less Rs.4,50,000/- on 24-12-2010  and they are under obligation to prove the same and that the defacto complainant never received any amount from the OP. Therefore, the complainant has taken amounts and executed agreement for sale of two flats as utterly false.
7. To prove the case on behalf of the complainant, he filed his affidavit and got marked Exhibit A1 to A7. On the other hand, on behalf of the OP, filed their affidavit and got marked Exhibits B1 to B12.
8. The complainant filed written arguments.
9. Heard oral arguments from both sides.

Exhibit A1 is the Broacher, Exhibit A2 is the Paper Publication in Eenadu, dated 07-12-2008, Exhibit A3 is the Sale deed, dated 15-05-2009, Exhibit A4 is the Construction Agreement dated 15-05-2009, Exhibit A5 is the Agreement dated 24-11-2010, Exhibit A6 is the Bunch of Receipts, Exhibit A7 is the Letter of authorization to the Complainant by the Defacto complainant, dated 26-08-2011.

Exhibit B1 is the  Receipt, dated 23-09-2012, Exhibit B2 is the Receipt, dated 01-03-2013, Exhibit B3 is the Receipt, dated 23-09-2012, Exhibit B4 is the Receipt, dated 01-03-2013, Exhibit B5 is the Receipt dated 03-05-2013, Exhibit B6 is the Receipt dated 05-05-2013, Exhibit B7 is the Sale Deed 15-05-2010, Exhibit B8 is the Ration Card, Exhibit B9 is the Driving license, Exhibit B10 is the Ration Card, Exhibit B11 is the construction agreement, dated 15-05-2010 and Exhibit B12 is the Sale agreement, dated 24-12-2010.

 

I.A.NO.72/2015

i) This application is filed by the petitioner/complainant for sending agreement of sale of 24-12-2010 and the receipts dated 23-09-2012, 1-3-2013, 03-05-2013 and 05-05-2013 containing his forged signatures to the expert for comparison with the admitted documents.

ii) The case of the petitioner is that OP1 received Rs.9,45,000/- towards construction agreement of two flats and also received Rs.1,30,000/-  for their registration as such, he demanded for registration. Ultimately OP agreed to refund the same. Rs.9,44,000/- and executed an agreement dated 24-11-2010 promising to refund the entire amount within 31-12-2010. It is also his case that the defacto complainant would not have executed another agreement of sale dated 24-12-2010 in favor of the OP1 by taking into consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- and had given time upto 30 months for payment of remaining amount of Rs.5,24,000/- and his signature on the sale agreement dated 24-12-2010 are forged and the receipts thereof, sending those documents to the expert and is necessary.

iii)      The counsel for the OP vehemently opposed.

iv)      Heard arguments from both sides.

v)      Now the point for consideration in this Petition is?

Whether the Petitioner/complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for in the above I.A.?

iv)      The averments of the petitioner clearly shows this petition is filed by complainant herein with the affidavit of Ginne Adinarayana whose admitted signatures are very much available on record which are filed by the complainant herein vide Exhibit A5 which is none other the Exhibit A4 Agreement dated 15-05-2009. Now the complainant is disputing the signatures of Ginne Adinarayana in the agreement dated 24-11-2010 and also the signatures of receipts dated 23-09-2012, 01-03-2013, 03-05-2013, 05-05-2013 i.e., Exhibit B3 to B6. On a careful perusal of the admitted as well as disputed signatures of Ginne Adilingayya, it appears as seen from the naked eye that the pen stroke, movements, etc.,  are one and the same. Therefore, it can be held that all the disputed signatures are duly signed by the Ginne Adilingayya only.  Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, sending the signatures to the forensic expert for comparison with the alleged disputed signatures does not arise as such, there is no need for sending them to expert for comparison. Accordingly, the petition is ordered .

10.     Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

11.     The contention of the OP is that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint as they failed to file piece of document to substantiate their case, admittedly, no proof is filed evidencing the complainant society is being represented by its President by simply evidencing of the same representing a society in our view can not by itself authorize the complainant to receive and lodge the complaint on behalf of the defacto complainant and as such the complainant has to prove its authenticity for prosecuting the complaint on behalf of the defacto complainant who has not even singed the complaint nor shown as a party to the complaint. Further, no resolution copy is filed or any of the affidavits of the members thereof.  The complainant did not file evidence showing that Chapa Kumar is a Chairman, Visakhapatnam Consumers Education and Service Society, Visakhapatnam. For these reasons, we hold that the  complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as rightly contended by the learned counsel for OP.

12.     The next contention of the complainant is that in spite of execution of agreement that the OP is willing to pay Rs.9,44,000/- vide Exhibit A5, he failed to pay the amount on or before 31-12-2010. According to OP, the complainant received a sum of  Rs.1,00,000/- on 23-09-2012, Rs.1,00,000/- on 01-03-2013, Rs.1,00,000/- on 23-09-2012, Rs.1,00,000/- on 01-03-2013 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 03-05-2013  and Rs.1,00,000/- on 05-05-2013 in all, they have paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-. On a careful perusal of Exhibit B1 to B7 and B11 and B12, it is evidence that the OPs paid the amount as agreed upon by virtue of Exhibit A5. For all these reasons, and in the light of the discussion in the above mentioned paragraphs, we hold that that there is no deficiency of service as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the OP for the transactions covered under Exhibit A Series. Therefore, the complainant filled by the complainant deserves to be dismissed.

13.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the  09^th day of June, 2015.                                   

 

 

Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                         Sd/-    

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT       

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A1		Broacher issued by the 1st OP	Original
A2	07-12-2008	Paper Publication	Original
A3	15-05-2009	Sale Deed executed by 1st OP	Photocopy
A4	15-05-2009	Construction Agreement	Photocopy
A5	24-11-2010	Agreement	Photocopy
A6	-	Bunch of receipts	Original
A7	26-08-2011	Letter of Authorization given to the complainant by the Defacto Complainant	Original

 

For the Opposite Parties:-  

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B1	26-08-2011	Receipt	Photocopy
B2	23-09-2012	Receipt	Photocopy
B3	01-03-2012	Receipt	Photocopy
B4	23-09-2012	Receipt	Photocopy
B5	01-03-2013	Receipt	Photocopy
B6	03-05-2013	Receipt	Photocopy
B7	05-05-2013	Sale Deed	Photocopy
B8		Ration Card
B9		Driving License
B10		Ration Card
B11	15-05-2010	Construction agreement
B12	24-12-2010	Sale Agreement

 

 

Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                         Sd/-    

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT