BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONHYDERABAD
FA.No.657/2008 AGAINST E.A.No.27/2008 IN C.D.No.349/2005, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, HYDERABAD.
Between:
1. Miss Mohana Ramesh Phadke, D/o.Ramesh
Phadke, aged 36 years, Occ:nil, R/o.134,
Penderghast Road, Secunderabad, being rep.
by its Lawful attorney Mrs.Sudha Ramesh
Phadke, R/o.134, Penderghast Road,
Secunderabad.
2. Avinash Ramesh Phadke, S/o.Ramesh Phadke,
Aged 34 years, Occ:Business, R/o.134,
Penderghast Road, Secunderabad. .Appellants/
Opp.parties 2 and 3.
AND
1. Sayed Ahmed, S/o.Gulam Dastagir,
Aged 39 years, Occ:Business, R/o.3-6-164,
Flat No.306, 307, Laxminarayana Apts.,
Hyderguda, Hyderabad. ..Respondent/
Complainant
2. M/s.Sana Constructions, rep. by its
Partner Mr.Mir Sikkinder Ali,
Azam Towers, 6-2-45/13, Advocate Colony
A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-4. ..Respondents/ O.P.No.1
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.J.C.Francis
Counsel for the Respondents: R1-party in person
R2-Mr.P.V.R.Ramasharma.
FA.No.810/2008 AGAINST E.A.No.27/2008 IN C.D.No.349/2005, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, HYDERABAD.
Between:
M/s.Sana Constructions, rep. by its
Partner Mr.Mir Sikkinder Ali,
Azam Towers, 6-2-45/13, Advocate Colony
A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-4. … Appellant/
Petitioner/O.P.No.1
And
1. Sayed Ahmed, S/o.Gulam Dastagir,
Aged 39 years, Occ:Business, R/o.3-6-164,
Flat No.306, 307, Laxminarayana Apts.,
Hyderguda, Hyderabad. ..Respondent/
Complainant
2. Miss Mohana Ramesh Phadke, D/o.Ramesh
Phadke, aged 36 years, Occ:nil, R/o.134,
Penderghast Road, Secunderabad, being rep.
by its Lawful attorney Mrs.Sudha Ramesh
Phadke, R/o.134, Penderghast Road,
Secunderabad.
3. Avinash Ramesh Phadke, S/o.Ramesh Phadke,
Aged 34 years, Occ:Business, R/o.134,
Penderghast Road, Secunderabad. .Respondents/
Opp.parties 2 and 3.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.P.V.Rama Sarma.
Counsel for the Respondents: R1-party in person
R2-Mr.J.C.Francis.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
Oral Order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
…
Aggrieved by the order in E.A.No.27/2008 in C.D.No.349/2005 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, F.A.No.810/2008 has been preferred by opposite party No.1 and F.A.No.657/2008 has been preferred by opposite parties 2 and 3. Since both the appeals arise out of a similar order, they are disposed of by a common order.
F.A.No.810/2008 has been preferred by opposite party against the order of the District Forum dated14-5-2008 in which the District Forum has issued N.B.W. for non-compliance of the order of State Commission in F.A.No.960/2006 dated 13-12-2007. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1 submitted that he has not preferred any appeal against the order dated 20-6-2006 passed by the District Forum in C.D.No.349/2005 and only opposite parties 2 and 3 preferred appeal in F.A.No.960/2006. He further contended in his grounds that he is only a nominal party and the complainant has issued notice dated 6-5-2008 to opposite parties 1 to 3 requesting them to prepare the sale deed on or before 11-5-2008, even though he is only a nominal party to comply with the directions of the Forum in E.A.No.27/2008.
F.A.No.657/2008 has been preferred by opposite parties 2 and 3 against the order of the District Forum dated 14-5-2008 issuing warrants to them for non compliance of the order of the State Commission.
We have perused the material on record. The order of the State Commission in F.A.No.960/2006 reads as follows:
‘In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the
District Forum is modified and the appellants and respondent No.2 i.e.
opposite party No.1 builder are jointly and severally liable to register
Flat Nos.306 and 307 along with undivided share of land of 21.20 sq.
yds. each in “Lakshminarayana Apartments” situated at H.No.3-6-164,
Hyderguda, Hyderabad and direct respondent/opposite party No.1
to rectify the defects and provide basic amenities. We set aside
the order of the District Forum with respect to removal of illegal
construction of shops in the stilt floor and 4th floor and direct the
respondent/complainant to approach the appropriate forum for seeking
redressal with respect to this aspect while confirming the compensation
and costs to be paid by opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally.
Time for compliance six weeks”.
The party in person was present before this Commission. The learned counsel for opposite party No.1 and opposite parties 2 and 3 were also present. Opposite party No.2 was also present in person. The learned counsel for appellants/opposite parties in F.A.No.657/2008 submitted that he is ready and willing to co-operate with execution of the sale deed provided the complainant does not press for rectification of the defects, since they are only land owners and not the builder and therefore, they cannot be saddled with this liability. The party in person submitted that he is only pressing for registration and execution of the sale deed and not in respect to rectification of defects and providing amenities. The learned counsel for appellant/opposite party No.1 in F.A.No.810/2008 submitted that he is willing to register the sale deed with the co-operation of opposite parties 2 and 3. With respect to these submissions in the open court, we direct the appellants/opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 to register the sale deed within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
In the result these appeals, F.A.Nos.657/2008 and F.A.No.810/2008 are allowed in part with a direction to the appellants/opposite parties to execute the registration of the sale deed only within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of order and the complainant shall not press for execution of other aspects of the order of the State Commission.
PRESIDENT. LADY MEMBER. MALE MEMBER.
JM Dated 18-7-2008
