BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT : HYDERABAD.
FA No. 404/2009 against CC 66/2008, District Forum, Ranga Reddy
Between :
M/s. Narne Constructions Private Limited
Having its office at # 1 gunrock enclave
Karkhana, Secunderabad-500009
Rep.by its General Manager
……. Appellant/opposite party.
And
1. Umesh Tandon
S/o late Rajendra Tendon
Aged:53 years, occ:business,
R/o Dubai (UAE) represented by his
SPA Holder E. Shreekar Varma
Aged 53 years, occ: Software Engineer
R/o 1-25-8/17,Surya Homes,
Gollaguda, Subash nagar,
Trimulgherry, Secunderabad
2. Smt. Nagaraju Kaumudi
D/o E. Shreekar Varma
Aged 35 years, Occ: Employee
R/o 1-25-8/17, Surya Homes,
Gollaguda, Subash nagar
Trimulgherry, Secunderabad
…….. Respondents/Complainants
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. D. Venkat Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. P. Nagapradeep.
CORAM : SRI SYED ABDULLAH …… PRESIDING MEMBER
AND
SRI R. LAXMINARASIMHA RAO … MEMBER
Tuesday, the Nineth Day of June, Two Thousand Nine
Oral order : (as per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member)
******
The appellant is the unsuccessful opposite party in CC 66/2008 before the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District, in which, the opposite party was directed to register conveyance deed in respect of plot no. 205 covered by survey no.218/4, 218/5 admeasuring 300 sy.yards situated at Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and further directed to pay damages an costs to an extent of Rs. One lakh.
Aggrieved by the impugned Order this appeal is filed questioning the legality and propriety of it.
Briefly stated the factual aspects of the case are that: the opposite party has been carrying on real estate business by developing and selling house sites. The first complainant applied for purchase of plot no.205 in opposite party’s venture at Central park and that he was allotted membership no.30150 by collecting advance and other necessary amounts. The first complainant wanted to have registration of the plot in favour of the second complainant and issued consent letter to the opposite party. After collecting the sale consideration and other expenses the opposite party had issued statement of accounts dated 04-04-2007 and that a sum of Rs. 8,77,000/- was paid under receipt nos. 181433 and 191434 dated 20-04-2007. Subsequently, the complainant contacted the opposite party for registration of the plot in the name of the second complainant but the opposite party did not accept the same. So they were forced to accept it. Required particulars are furnished for registering the plot either in the name of the first complainant or second complainant. While so, a letter dated 16.11.2007 was sent by the opposite party stating that the membership of the first complainant was cancelled as they did not evince any interest and did not pay the dues. In the said letter a reference was made to the another letter dated 03.07.2007 which was in fact not at all received by the complainant. Nothing was due from the complainants to be paid to the opposite party by then. The Opposite party failed to register the plot. a letter dated 31.12.2007 was sent by the Opposite parties enclosing a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- informing the initial payment was made and that the remaining amount from out of Rs. 8,77,000/- being refunded since the membership was cancelled which act or omission is illegal and it attracts deficiency in service.
The opposite party remained exparte though served with notice. So on the basis of documents Ex A1 to A8 the District Forum gave a finding that the complainants have paid a sum of Rs. 8,77,000/- and they are entitled for registering Conveyance Deed in respect of plot no.205 at kondapur village,
Serilingampally mandal and Ranga Reddy District and thereby directed to execute conveyance deed and also to pay compensation of Rs. One lakh for mental agony and inconvenience caused to them.
The appellants in the appeal grounds have contended that there was no concluded contract in between the first complainant and the opposite party and in such a situation he cannot sell away the allotted plot in favour of the second respondent. It is further contended that the District Forum failed to consider the correspondence exchanged between the opposite party and complainant demanding to pay the outstanding dues. Even at the stage of hearing of the appeal, the appellant/opposite party has not filed any single document in support of its contentions. The respondents/Complainants have filed the copies of Ex A1 to A5 by supplying the copies to the appellant. Even from a cursory look of the documents Ex A1 and A2, it is very clear that the opposite party had collected a sum of Rs. 8,77,000/- by 20.04.2007 itself. Ex A3 dated 04.04.2007 is the statement issued by the opposite party which shows that a sum of Rs. 1,35,250/- was paid and that the balance amount of Rs. 5,90,800/- is outstanding in respect of plot 205 to an extent of 300 Sy. Yards. Ex A3 also shows that ULC charges of Rs.1,56,500/- to be paid. The General Manager (Finance) had made an endorsement to accept cash and this endorsement was made on 20-04-2007 from this it is very clear that the complainant was ready to pay the outstanding amount due. The opposite party could have produced the evidence with regard to what is the total cost of the plot that was allotted to him and what is the remaining balance due to him from the complainants. Ex A4 is a letter dated 16.11.2007 sent to the second complainant informing her that she was asked to clear of the dues by 10th July, 2007 to be eligible for registration of the plot. There is no evidence on record to show that the first complaint was informed about the outstanding dues. In fact the second complainant is not a member of it and in such a case Ex A4 is unwarranted. The complainant has a right to request the opposite party to execute conveyance deed in favour of the second complainant or in favour of the person of choice. Ex A5 is another letter dated 31.12.2007 addressed to the second complainant that out of total consideration of Rs. 8,77,000/- that was paid to the opposite party, an advance payment of Rs.50,000/- being sent through cheque dated 28.01.2008 and the remaining will be sent shortly. When the second complainant is not a member of the venture it is not known how the opposite party could address to the second complainant. In response to Ex A4 and A5 letters the complainants have sent Ex A6 legal notice to the opposite party rising objections for cancellation without any intimation even though a payment of Rs.8,77,000/- was received long back as on 28.07.2007 itself, for which no replay was sent by the opposite party. When the complainants have produced prima facie evidence to show that they have paid Rs.8,77,000/- to the opposite party and it was admitted by the opposite party, the burden shifted on the opposite party to prove how the contract is not a concluded contract in between the parties. The opposite party miserably failed to substantiate the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal to interfere with the propriety of the impugned order. The act or omission on the part of the opposite party in canceling the plot amounts to unfair trade practice as well deficiency in service. The first complainant has every right to question the legality and deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The first complainant being the purchaser of the plot he has option to take the plot either in his name or the name of any person.
He may assign the plot to anyone requiring opposite parties to execute conveyance deed. The contentions raised by the opposite party are not sustainable both on fact and law. The impugned order directing to execute conveyance deed in favour of the complainant is upheld.
But with regard to compensation to an extent of Rs. One lakh is found to be excessive and exorbitant. The complainant has not quantified the damage that he had incurred so as to claim Rs. One lakh towards compensation. The litigation had started only in November, 2007 and thereafter a complaint was filed within few months, i.e, on March, 2008. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to reduce compensation to an extent of Rs. 25,000/-.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed in respect of the direction for conveyance deed of the plot in question but the quantum of compensation is reduced to Rs.25,000/-. Each party to bear its own costs in the appeal.
PRESIDING MEMBER
MEMBER
Dated: 09.06.2009
