Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/11/49

R. Sathyamma W/o Narsimhulu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thirumala Traders, Represented by its Managing Director by name and Another - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M. Chennaiah Goud

29 Jul 2011

ORDER

  BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, the 29^th day of July, 2011 

                                                    Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                                                                       Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member        

      Smt.D.Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

C.C.NO. 49  Of   2011

Between:-

R. Sathyamma W/o Narsimhulu, aged: 56 years, Occ: Retired Govt. Employee, R/o H.No.5-8, Vepurigeri, Mahabubnagar Town.

                                                          … Complainant

And

1. Thirumala Traders, Represented by its Managing Director by name

    Sri N. Subramanyam S/o Sanjiva Rayudu, R/o D.No.50/760 A-116,                       

    1^st Floor, Gayathri Towers, M.S. Nagar, Kurnool.    

2. Thirumala Traders, Represented by its Manager by name Sri R. Pratap  

    S/o Narsimhulu, R/o H.No.9-2-254, Pedda Cheruvu road, Opp: Taj  

    Function Hall, New Town, Mahabubnagar. 

                                                                                                                                                           … Opposite Parties

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 14-7-2011 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

                                                                                                        O R D E R

  (Sri P. Sridhara Rao, President)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to register plot in Sy.Nos.354 and 357 extent 133.33 Sq. Yards or to pay present market value of the plot and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, financial stress and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards  costs of the complaint.   

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 being the Managing Director and Manager respectively have floated a housing plots scheme in the name and style of Thirumala Traders, Mahabubnagar in the land situated in Sy.Nos.354 and 357 in Jadcherla village sivar.  The opposite parties have canvassed about the scheme with colourful brochures and appointed agents throughout district to canvass about housing plots scheme.  Believing the canvass made by the opposite parties the complainant joined as a member in the said housing plots scheme and the opposite parties have allotted him membership No.110.  As per the terms the scheme period is for 60 months and each plot is an extent of 133.33 Sq. Yards.  After joining as a member of the scheme, the complainant has regularly paid amount for all the total 60 monthly installments and fulfilled the terms of the scheme.  After completion of the payment of installments when the complainant approached the opposite parties for registration of the plot, the opposite parties postponed the registration of the plot on some pretext of other and in the mean time sold away the plot to third parties who are not the members of the scheme to a higher price and ultimately failed to register the plot in favour of the complainant inspite of getting the legal notice issued to them.  In fact, the OP-1 having received the notice not given any reply even while the OP-2 refused to receive the notice even and in the mean time shifted their office to a different place.  Such act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.  

3. The opposite parties filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stated that there is no relationship between them and the complainant as such the question of rendering service to the complainant does not arise, and that the opposite parties are not having any liability to make register the plot as alleged by the complainant as the opposite parties never received any amount for execution of the same and further the complaint is also barred by limitation and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.    

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of her claim filed her affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-42.  On the other hand, the opposite parties in support of their contentions filed their affidavit evidence and got no documents marked. 

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1.  Whether is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by her? 

    (iii)  To what effect? 

6. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties being the Managing Director and Manager of the firm respectively floated housing plots scheme under the name and style of Thirumala Traders in the land situated in Sy.Nos.354 and 357 in Jadcherla sivar.  It is also the case of the complainant that when he joined as a member in the scheme the opposite parties allotted him membership No.110 and thereupon the complainant regularly paid the entire amount for all the 60 monthly installments as per the terms of the scheme. In support of her contentions the complainant relied upon the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-38 in token of receipt of the amount by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties, except mere denial of the case of the complainant, did not challenge the genuineness of the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-38. The contention of the opposite parties is that they never received any amount from the complainant for execution of the sale deed in her favour. That itself shows that the opposite parties were ever ready to register the plot in favour of the complainant in case of the complainant making payment of the entire amount for all the installments as per the terms of the scheme.  Here is the case where the complainant had produced the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-38 to show that he has paid the entire amount as per the terms of the scheme for registration of the plot. Therefore, we find that the contention of the opposite parties that they never received any amount for registration of the plot in favour of the complainant is not tenable.  A perusal of the recitals of the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-38 clearly goes to show that they were all said to have been issued on behalf of the opposite party firm and further the opposite parties did not challenge the recitals of Exs.A-1 to A-38.  Therefore, it is made clear by the complainant that she had paid the entire amount to the opposite parties as per the terms of the scheme and the opposite parties in turn not yet registered the plot in her favour till the date of filing of the present complaint.  It is also the case of the complainant that when the opposite parties were postponing the registration of the plot she also got issued a legal notice as under the original of Ex.A-39 to both the opposite parties and the OP-1 having received the said notice did not even give any reply or complied her demand while the OP-2 refused to receive the notice even.  If really the opposite parties have never received any amount from the complainant the OP-1 atleast ought to have given a suitable reply accordingly to the complainant. But this is the case where it is clearly established by the complainant that the OP-1 did not even give any reply while the OP-2 refused to receive the notice even.  Hence, we find that that itself is also a part of admission on the part of the opposite parties in admitting the case of the complainant.  Hence we find that such act on the part of the opposite parties in not registering the plot in favour of the complainant even after receiving the entire amount from her amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.     

7. It is also the case of the complainant that the opposite parties even after receiving the entire amount as per the terms of the scheme and though the scheme period was completed long back the opposite parties have not registered the plot in her favour till date the circumstances of which forced her to file the present complaint.  It is the contention of the opposite parties that since the alleged scheme period was completed more than two years ago and the present complaint is filed on 1-3-2011 the very complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation and is not maintainable under law.  But we are unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that it is settled law that the period of limitation continues till the date of execution of the sale deed and possession of the land is delivered to the complainant.  As stated above, it is a fact borne out from the record that the plot is not yet registered in favour of the complainant and possession of the same was also not delivered to her by the opposite parties till the date of filing of the present complaint. Therefore we find that the complaint filed by the complainant is within time, as such there is no force in the contention of the opposite parties in taking such a plea.  So, it is clearly established by the complainant that the opposite parties having received the entire amount from her ultimately not registered the plot in her favour.  Hence, we find that the said act on the part of the opposite parties in not registering the plot inspite of receiving the entire amount from the complainant amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant has clearly established the grounds of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as such both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply the relief sought for by the complainant reasonably. 

8. This is the case where the complainant is seeking a relief to direct the opposite parties to register the plot or to pay the present market value of the plot.  But it is the very case of the complainant that the opposite parties sold away the plot allotted to her to third parties who are not the members of the scheme to a higher price.  That itself shows that the plot in question allotted to the complainant was already sold away to the third parties and at present it is not in the hands of the opposite parties.  Under such circumstances, we are of the view that if an order is passed directing the opposite parties to register the said plot in favour of the complainant and no useful purpose will be served except multiplying a further litigation between both the parties. Therefore, in order to meet out the ends of justice we thought it better to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund the amount paid by the complainant along with interest and a deterrent compensation and costs of the complaint since the complainant not produced any documentary proof showing the present market value of the plot.  Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.

9. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing both the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.18,000/- paid by her towards the scheme amount for 60 months  @ Rs.300/- per month along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of legal notice got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties i.e., 23.12.2010 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the present order.   

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of July, 2011.    

 

   I agree                                              I agree                                                        

 

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT                    

                                                                                                   Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

P.W.1:R. Sathyamma                                    R.W.1: N. Subramanyam

                                                                       R.W.2: R. Pratap.

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original Receipt, dt.23.5.1995.

Ex.A-2: Original Receipt, dt.15.6.1995.

Ex.A-3: Original Receipt, dt.15.7.1995.

Ex.A-4: Original Receipt, dt.14.8.1995.

Ex.A-5: Original Receipt, dt.15.9.1995.

Ex.A-6: Original Receipt, dt.16.11.1995.

Ex.A-7: Original Receipt, dt.15.12.1995.

Ex.A-8: Original Receipt, dt.15.2.1996.

Ex.A-9: Original Receipt, dt.13.7.1996.

Ex.A-10: Original Receipt, dt.15.8.1996.

Ex.A-11: Original Receipt, dt.16.9.1996.

Ex.A-12: Original Receipt, dt.15.10.1996.

Ex.A-13: Original Receipt, dt.16.12.1996.

Ex.A-14: Original Receipt, dt.20.1.1997.

Ex.A-15: Original Receipt, dt.9.5.1997.

Ex.A-16: Original Receipt, dt.16.6.1997.

Ex.A-17: Original Receipt, dt.15.10.1997.

Ex.A-18: Original Receipt, dt.15.7.1998.

Ex.A-19: Original Receipt, dt.15.7.1998.

Ex.A-20: Original Receipt, dt.15.7.1998.

Ex.A-21: Original Receipt, dt.15.7.1998.

Ex.A-22: Original Receipt, dt.15.7.1998.

Ex.A-23: Original Receipt, dt.15.8.1998.

Ex.A-24: Original Receipt, dt.15.8.1998.

Ex.A-25: Original Receipt, dt.15.8.1998.

Ex.A-26: Original Receipt, dt.15.8.1998.

Ex.A-27: Original Receipt, dt.15.8.1998.

Ex.A-28: Original Receipt, dt.15.9.1998.

Ex.A-29: Original Receipt, dt.6.10.1998.

Ex.A-30: Original Receipt, dt.5.11.1998.

Ex.A-31: Original Receipt, dt.15.12.1998.

Ex.A-32: Original Receipt, dt.11.1.1999.

Ex.A-33: Original Receipt, dt.15.5.1999.

Ex.A-34: Original Receipt, dt.14.6.1999.

Ex.A-35: Original Receipt, dt.15.7.1999.

Ex.A-36: Original Receipt, dt.8.9.1999.

Ex.A-37: Original Receipt, dt.16.10.1999.

Ex.A-38: Original Receipt, dt.6.12.1999.

Ex.A-39: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.23.12.2010.

Ex.A-40: Postal Acknowledgment.

Ex.A-41: Original Postal Receipt, dt.23.12.2010.

Ex.A-42: Returned Envelop Cover.

On behalf of OPs.:                         

                                - Nil -

 

                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                              

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.