BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.523/2008 AGAINST C.D.No.93/2007 DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT..
Between:
M/s.Jana Harsha Estates Construction Pvt.
Ltd., rep. by its Chairman & Managing
Director, Sri T.V.Ramana Murthy,
Central office, H.No.12-5-33/2,
Vijayapuri, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. Appellant/
Opp.party.
And
Sri S.Prakash Reddy,
S/o.late Sri S.Narayana Reddy,
Aged 55 years, Occ:employee,
R/o.H.No.3-1-48/4/1, SBH Venture-III
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. Respondent
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.B.S.Prasad
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Janardhan Reddy
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
THURSDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral order:(Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)
***
This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the exparte order passed by the District Forum directing it to execute the registered sale deed on the complaint filed by the respondent herein.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the appellant is a construction company and on the offer made it, he agreed to purchase plot bearing No.A-32 admeasuring 2400 sq. yds. in the venture floated by the appellant. He paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.5,98,000/- evidenced under receipts, Ex.A21 and despite issuance of notice, the appellant did not give any reply. Therefore, he filed the complaint to direct the appellant herein to execute the registered sale deed or in the alternative to refund the sale consideration of Rs.5,98,000/- together with costs.
Notice sent to the opposite party by the District Forum was returned by the post man as “N.S” without proper endorsement and the District Forum drew a presumption that notice was sent to the address furnished by the opposite party and hence it set it exparte.
The complainant in proof of his case, filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A25.
The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that the opposite party was at fault and directed it to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the schedule property i.e. plot bearing No.A-32 admeasuring 2400 sq. yds. situated at Dream City II Garden Unit Scheme (Sagar Block) Under I Sector (Paradise), Ibrahimpatnam, R.R.District within 15 days together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred this appeal contending that no notice was issued before passing the order.
A perusal of the record clearly discloses that notice was not served on the appellant. The fact that as to why notice could not be served was not made a mention by the Postman while returning the cover. Naturally when no notice was served on the appellant, we feel that it is a fit case to set aside the order passed by the District Forum as no opportunity was given to the appellant to canvass its defense.
In the result the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the District Forum is directed to restore the complaint to its file. Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 13-9-2010 without insisting on fresh notice. The appellant is directed to file written version on that day and the District Forum after receiving the written version shall give opportunity to both sides to let in evidence and dispose of the matter according to law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.19-8-2010