BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 451/1999 Filed on 18.09.1999

Dated : 16.02.2009

Complainant:

Shameem A. Hakeem, Luquman Building, Edava P.O, Varkala.

(By adv. S.A. Karim)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, VGP Agro Farm (P) Ltd., VGP Square, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

    

2. Dr. R. Arumughan, Vice President, VGP Agro Farm (P) Ltd., VGP Square, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

    

3. N. Sundara Rajan, Accountant, VGP Agro Farm (P) Ltd., VGP Square, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

(By adv. Rita Nayar)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 24.08.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been heard on 15.01.2009, the Forum on 16.02.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

The brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that the complainant had purchased two units for Rs. 25,000/- each from the opposite parties who are raising agro farms and fruit orchards in various places and selling it in units. The 1^st instalment of Rs. 10,000/- was paid on 18.11.1993 and the 2^nd instalment was paid as per cheque dated 03.02.1994. Subsequently, the opposite parties received the balance amount in equal instalments and the complainant has completed the payment of Rs. 49,970/- in July 1995. Despite several requests the opposite parties have neither allotted the unit nor transferred the units in his name or hand over possession to the complainant and hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances.

The opposite parties have filed joint version contending as follows: The complaint is barred by limitation. It is admitted that the complainant has paid Rs. 49,970/- towards the value of 2 units. But he was reluctant to pay the stamp duty and registration expenses till date. It is specifically stated in the purchase order itself, that the unit value fixed is except these stamp duty and registration expenses for the actual extent of the plot to be conveyed. The farm units will not include cost of stamp paper and registration expenses. The complainant after accepting these terms and conditions of the VGP Ever Green Orchards Scheme has entered into the contract with the opposite party. As per the stipulation in the above said agreement, complainant has to comply with the terms and conditions. The complainant has entered into this agreement with the opposite party at Dubai. The property is situated at Thirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. There is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. The opposite parties are ready with the sale deed registered for these two units. The documents have already been sent to Dubai branch for handing over to the complainant. But since the complainant has to pay the stamp duty and registration expenses, it cannot be handed over to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

The complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked. Exts. D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

This complaint was once dismissed as not maintainable, but it was remanded for considering the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their rival cases and decide the matter in accordance with law.

On the contentions raised, the following issues arise for consideration:

1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs and costs.

Point (i):- Admittedly the complainant had purchased 2 units from the opposite parties for Rs. 25,000/- each totalling to Rs. 50,000/- and he had paid Rs. 49,970/- towards the value of 2 units. One of the main contentions of the opposite parties is that the agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties has been entered at Dubai and the scheduled immovable property is situated at Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu and the opposite parties carry their business at Tamil Nadu and since the opposite parties neither reside or carry on their business nor any part of the cause of action arises within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Forum, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The pleadings in the complaint are to the effect that, the opposite parties' agent approached the complainant and narrated about the farm business and its maintenance, development etc. Ext. P5 and Ext. D2 are one and the same and it is the copy of the Farmland purchase order. In Ext. P5 which is produced by the complainant, the address of the applicant is seen written as Dubai and in Ext. D5 it has been rewritten as Edava, Kerala. From the above document, the place where the agreement has been entered is ambiguous. In Ext. P4 the address of the complainant is seen entered as that of Dubai. But Ext. P1 dated 24.11.1995 sent on behalf of the opposite parties is seen addressed to the complainant in his Edava address wherein the opposite parties have assured the complainant that the land registration papers have been forwarded for documentation to Tirunelveli. Ext. P2 dated 04.12.1996 is also seen addressed to the complainant in his Edava, Kerala address. From the above documents the Forum is of the view that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Point (ii):- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation is the next aspect which requires consideration. There is no dispute with regard to the date of farmland purchase order which is 18.11.1993 as per Ext. P5 and Ext. D2. The complaint has been filed in September 1999. The only thing to be ascertained is whether as on the date when the complaint was filed before the Forum, the cause of action was alive and subsisting under the law of limitation as per Sec. 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. We have gone through the records and evidence. The records produced on behalf of the complainant go to prove that the opposite parties have given information with regard to the Evergreen Orchards on 04.12.1996. But there is no other document to prove the transaction between the parties after that except Ext. P3 which is a copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party on 14.08.1999. But Ext. P3 is not supported with any records to prove that such a letter has been sent to the opposite party. Anyhow, the agreement has not been disputed. It is not in dispute and it has been fairly admitted that till date neither possession has been handed over nor the units have been transferred. The complainant's cause of action is surviving till the date he gets the possession of the land, as per Ext. P5/Ext. D2. The cause of action in the instant case still survives as substantial portion of the reliefs prayed for is not barred by limitation. The claim of the complainant still survives. A demand has been made for handing over the possession and even as on the date of the complaint, the same has not been handed over. Thus we find that the complaint is within the limitation.

Point (iii):- On the face of the allegations contained in the complaint, it is evident that the complainant has made a payment of only Rs. 49,970/- which is the value of 2 units. Ext. P5 produced by the complainant is the copy of farmland purchase order which is only one sided, whereas Ext D5 which is the copy of the same document has the terms and conditions of the scheme on the reverse side. As per the said terms and conditions overleaf, it has been stated that 'upon the purchasers paying the stipulated amount and on his/her acceptance of the terms and conditions set forth by the company for the registration, the land will be registered in his/her name. Stamp duty, registration expenses etc. shall be to the purchaser's account'. This document which contains the above referred terms and conditions has been signed by the complainant. The complainant in Ext. P5/D2 has confirmed that he has carefully studied the terms and conditions governing the scheme and assures that the same are acceptable to them totally. The complainant has no case that inspite of payment of registration charges the opposite parties have not handed over the possession to him.

The terms and conditions of the farmland purchase order is the basis of the contract and one has to abide the terms of contract. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant has not fulfilled his part as per the contract for which no deficiency in service can be attributed to the opposite parties. The opposite parties in their version admit that they are ready with sale deed registered for the 2 units purchased by the complainant and since the complainant has to pay the stamp duty and registration expenses, it cannot be handed over. Considering the above facts and circumstances and evidence into consideration, we find the complainant entitled for the sale deed registered for the 2 units in his name after making the required registration expenses as per the terms and conditions.

In the result, the opposite parties shall register the sale deed for the 2 units purchased by the complainant within a period of 2 months after the acceptance of the required amount for the same as per the terms and conditions. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs and compensation.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16^th February 2009.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

O.P. No. 451/1999

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Letter No. VGPAF/2301/95-96 dated 24.11.1995 addressed to

the opposite parties.

P2 - Letter No. VGPA/AG/DUB/12-A dated 04.12.1996.

P3 - Copy of letter last send requesting transfer of possession dated

14.08.1999.

P4 - Passbook of Account No. VGPA/EE/D4/12 issued by opposite

party.

P5 - Copy of Farm Land Purchase Order dated 18.11.1993.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Booklet of opposite party.

PRESIDENT