BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 633/2007 against C.C. 503/2005, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad
Between:
M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Chairman &
Managing Director
Col. N. Ranga Rao (Retd)
No. 1 Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009 *** Appellant/
Opposite Party
And
B. V. Ramanaiah
S/o. Late B. Suryanarayana
Age: 67 years,
Retd. Employee,
HIGH-69, IIIrd Phase
Near Venkateswara Temple
KPHB Colony, Hyderabad-70. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. K. R. Koteswara Rao
Counsel for the Resps: M/s. A. Durga Bhaskar.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order: (Per Sri R. L. Narasimha Rao, Member)
*****
1) The appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum-I, Hyderabad in C.D.No.503 of 2005.
2) The opposite party is the appellant herein. The dispute in a narrow compass is in regard to the payment of registration charges of Rs.9,500/- as was ordered by the District Forum against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
3) The respondent had entered into an agreement with the appellant for purchase of plot bearing No.79, Golden Heights Hyderabad for a sale consideration of Rs.2,60,000/-. The respondent has contended that he had paid the entire sale consideration and also a sum of Rs.9,350/- towards registration charges. The appellant offered plot no.66 measuring 267 sq. yards instead of the plot No.79 measuring 250 sq. yards. The respondent got issued legal notice dated 28.1.2005 requesting the appellant to allot the plot no.79 which was originally allotted to him.
4) The version of the appellant is that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.2,50,500/- till 1.4.2003 and Rs.9,500/- by the month of June 2003 and thereafter on 25.3.2004 a sum of Rs.9,350/- which was received by them towards balance sale consideration. As per the norms of town and planning department Govt. of A.P., certain changes have been carried out whereby the plot no. have been changed. The terms and conditions mentioned in the membership form empower the appellant to redefine and decide the dimension of the plot based on approval by HUDA. In reply dated 4.3.2005 the appellant had informed the respondent that in case he is not interested in the alternative plot offered by the appellant, he can receive back the money paid to the appellant.
5) The District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the appellant to refund amount of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till 22.4.2005 and with interest @ 9% per annum from 23.4.2005 till payment, Rs.9,350/- towards registration charges and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
6) Being aggrieved by the direction for refund of the registration charges, the appellant had filed the appeal. Therefore, the only question left to be decided is whether the appellant is liable to pay the registration charges to the respondent.
7) It is a matter of payment of amount on different occasions made by the respondent and calculation of the said amount under different heads as was contended by the appellant herein. Admittedly, the respondent has paid an amount of Rs.2,50,500/- till 1.4.2003, Rs.9,500/- till the month of June 2003 and Rs.9,350/- as on 25.3.2004 and the last mentioned amount, according to the appellant was towards the balance sale consideration whereas the respondent contended that the said amount was p[aid towards registration charges. Therefore, the dispute in a nutshell is over the sum of Rs.9,350/- whether being charged towards the balance sale consideration or under the head of registration charges.
8) A perusal of agreement of sale dated 23.12.2003 show that the plot bearing no.79 in Golden Heights measuring 250 sq. yards located in Sy.No.749 was agreed to be sold to the respondent as per the payment schedule that the respondent had paid Rs.50,000/- by the date of agreement of sale and balance amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was to be paid by 27.3.2003. Condition No.4 of the agreement of sale enjoins the liability of payment of stamp duty and registration charges on the respondent. Thus the total sale consideration as envisaged by the agreement of sale is Rs .2,60,000/-.
The appellant addressed letter dated 23.4.2004 to the respondent informing him that the respondent had paid the entire sale consideration of the plot and he was due the amount towards registration. An amount of Rs.9,345/- was demanded under Ex.A2 by the appellant and in compliance, the respondent had paid the said amount which the appellant now turns round and claims it to be the part of sale consideration. In the light of a clear demand for the registration charges, Rs.9350/- under Ex.A2 and payment of the same under the said head by the respondent, the appellant cannot transform the amount collected under registration charges towards part of sale consideration despite the fact that it was admitted that entire sale consideration was paid by the respondent. Therefore, we do not find any force in the contention that the respondent has paid Rs.9350/- towards the balance sale consideration. We do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned impugned order. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9) In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum-I, Hyderabad in C.D.No.503 of 2005, with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 12 .10. 2009.
*KMK
