BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION - HYDERABAD
F.A.No.781/2006 against C.D.No.15/2005 , District Forum, Rangareddy Dist.
Between:
1. V.Sujatha,
W/o.M.Ram Gopal Reddy ,
Aged about 31 years, Indian,
Occ:Service .
2. M.Ram Gopal Reddy,
S/o.Raji Reddy,
Aged about 35 years,
Occ:Advocate,.
( Both are R/o.H.No. 3-14-297 (Plot No.5),
Sree Ram Nagar Colony,
Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar,
R.R.District). .... Appellants/
Complainants
And
Sri S.S.Nagesh Kumar,
S/o.S.Sathyanarayana Rao,
H.No.16-118/2,
Prashanthi Nagar,
Uppal, Hyderabad – 39. ... Respondent/
Opp.party
Counsel for the appellants : Sri P.Roy Reddy
Counsel for the respondent : M/s.Ekambar
CORAM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT .
Oral Order : (Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
…..
This is an appeal filed by the appellants/complainants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to set aside the order passed by the District Forum , Ranga Reddy Dist in C.D.No.15/2005 dt. 27.2.2006.
The appellants herein are the complainants before the District Forum. They filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.2,50,000/- with 24 percent interest p.a. from 28.2.2004 till realisation towards the value of unauthorised construction , to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-
The case of the complainant is as follows-
The opposite party is the owner of a semi finished house situated in plot no.5 in Sy.No.23, 24 and 28. Sree Ram Nagar Colony, Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District and he offered to sell the said house to the complainants for a consideration of Rs.8,90,000/- by representing that he obtained proper approval from the L.B.Nagar Municipality . The complainants paid Rs.5,000/- on 26.1.2004 , Rs.20,000/- on 5.2.2004 and Rs.75,000/- on 12.2.2004 in cash towards the purchase of the above said house. The opposite party executed an agreement of sale with the complainants on 26.2.2004 only for a sum of Rs.7,90,000/- . But the opposite party did not furnish a copy of the approved plan of the building for verification. The opposite party executed sale deed on 28.2.2004 on receipt of entire sale consideration .The opposite party has represented to the complainants that he has obtained house loan from S.B.H. , Alkapuri branch for construction of the house by mortgaging the originals of the property When the original sale deed dated 16.6.1999 ,plan was brought to the office of the Sub Registrar , Saroornagar on 28.2.2004 the complainants for the first time came to know that LB..Nagar Municipality had approved the plan to the opposite party to construct the house with a plinth area of 888.75 sft. only and not 1200 sft. as stated by the opposite party. After having possession of the house they came o know that there is total deviation in construction of the house from the approved plan and the construction with deviations and it may be demolished at any time without any notice. The opposite party has intentionally suppressed the facts pertaining to the payment of tax and deviation of the construction causing wrongful loss to them. The complainants have constrained to spend more than Rs.40,000/- towards the amenities like drainage and development . The conduct of the opposite party in withholding the factual information of the above said facts amounts to deficiency of service and also cheating . Hence the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.2,50,000 with at the rate of 24 percent p.a. from 28.2.2004 till the date of realisation towards the value of unauthorised construction , to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards inconvenience, hardship and mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- ..
The opposite party filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and contending that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or on law. The opp.party prayed to dismiss the complaint stating that it is purely of civil dispute in nature and there is no cause of action for filing the complaint and the same is filed to extract money from him . The execution of sale deed in favour of the complainants conclusively establishes that the transaction has been completed according to the wishes of the buyer , otherwise the buyer is having every right to cancel the transaction prior to the sale deed. There are no deviations from the approved plan at the time of handing over the property to the complainants by the opp.party. The property was got mutated in favour of the complainants and necessary charges were paid by the opp.party to the L.B.Nagar Municipality . The complainants are not entitled to the any relief from the Forum and if they have any grievance the only remedy upon them is to approach a Civil Court . The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The complainant filed evidence affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A15 . No documents are marked on behalf of the opp.party.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings dismissed the complaint .
Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the District Forum , the complainant filed this appeal
The point for determination arises in this appeal is whether the order passed by the District Forum is sustainable.
There is no dispute that the opp.party offered to sell the house to the complainant for Rs.8,90,000/- representing that he obtained proper approval from the L.B Nagar Municipality for construction of house and there were no arrears towards taxes. The opp.party has executed an agreement of sale on 26.2.2004 for an amount of Rs.7,90,000/- but the opposite party did not furnish a copy of the approved plan of the building . On 28.2.2004 the opp.party executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant after receipt of the entire sale consideration. After the complainants occupied the house then he came to know about the deviations made towards the construction of the house. The appellants contended that the opposite party has constructed the house with deviations and municipality may at any time demolish the unauthorised constructions. The respondent has taken a plea that the constructed area is 1200 sft. However the complainant filed Ex.A10 Valuation Certification issued by Sri Durga Associates in which it is mentioned that the approved plan area is 888.75 sq.fts. and on physical verification at site constructed area is 1213 sq. fts. and deviated area is 324.25 sq.fts. The appellants contended that the District Forum has not properly discussed the documentary evidence filed by them and dismissed the complaint on the ground that it is a civil dispute and the order passed by the District Forum may be set aside. The respondent submits that the dispute is of civil nature and the finding of the District Forum may be confirmed . The appellants are seeking relief to refund the amount in respect of the unauthorised construction and municipal tax due by the opp.party. Unfortunately without discussing as to why the deficiency attributed by the complainant will not attract the Consumer Protection Act, it was held that it was a civil dispute . It did not advert to any of the contentions taken by the complainant . Having executed sale deed for a particular extent and when it find that there was lesser extent, besides various deviations, it is incumbent on the District Forum to discuss the matter in detail and come to a conclusion . We are of the opinion that the District Forum has to re-appreciate evidence.
In the result appeal is partly allowed. Order passed by the District Forum is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Forum for denovo enquiry after giving opportunity to both parties and decide the dispute on merits. The parties shall bear their costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Dt. 24.7.2008
Pm-
