Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/11/44

PJS Radha Rani W/o P. Sathyanarayana Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Venkatadri Traders, Rep. by its Managing Director by name Sri N. Subramanyam, Kurnool & Another - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M. Chennaiah Goud

14 Sep 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Wednesday, the 14^th day of September, 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. 44  Of   2011

Between:-

PJS Radha Rani W/o P. Sathyanarayana Raju, age: 54 years,  Occ: Household, R/o H.No.8-3-53/10/B, Teachers Colony, Mahabubnagar.                                                                                                                                                                … Complainant

And

1. Venkatadri Traders, Rep. by its Managing Director by name                                                                         

    Sri N. Subramanyam, R/o D.No.50/760 A-116, 1^st floor,                                                                                                                                   Gayathri Towers, M.S. Nagar, Kurnool.

2. Venkatadri Traders, Rep. 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 6-9-2011 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of 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 A. Veerupakshi, Member)

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 No.140 ‘B’ block in respect of the scheme in Sy.Nos.42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 leads to Jadcherla-Hyderabad opp: Mission Hospital, N.H.No.7 at Jadcherla or to pay present market value of the plot and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, financial stress and for deficiency of service, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.  

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The opposite parties started a housing plot scheme in Sy.Nos.42 to 46 situated at Mission Hospital, N.H.No.7, Jadcherla in the name and style of Venkatadri Traders, Venkatadri Nagar and canvassed about their housing plots scheme by appointing agents throughout the district.  As per the housing plots scheme the period is 59 months and there will be a lucky draw at about 5:00 p.m. on  9^th of every month in the office premises of the opposite parties and the lucky winner need not pay further installments. The area of the plot is 133.33 Sq. yards (30 x 40) and the total cost of the plot is Rs.9,600/-.  Every member has to pay Rs.160/- per month. Believing the canvassed colourful brochures the complainant joined as a member in the opposite parties housing plots scheme and she was allotted a membership No.3100.   So the complainant has paid regularly all the installments upto 59 months and reserved the plot No.140, ‘B’ block on 5-5-1997 by paying Rs.1,440/- to the opposite parties.  While the matter stood thus, the opposite parties after completion of the said scheme though the complainant insisted for registration of the said plot failed to register the said plot in her favour.  The complainant approached number of times to the office of the opposite parties but the opposite parties have postponed the matter on some pretext or other. The acts of the opposite parties are nothing but deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Due to the attitude of the opposite parties the complainant suffered much mental pain and agony. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.       

3. The opposite parties filed counter stating that there is no relationship between the complainant and these opposite parties, that the receipts filed before this Forum do not contain any signatures of these opposite parties and there is no liability to pay the amount nor register the plot in favour of the complainant and these opposite parties are not having any legal right to execute the registered sale deed pertaining to the said scheme as such the question of rendering of service does not arise, and that as per the very complaint itself the transaction was commenced from January, 1993 and the same was completed in the month of December, 1998 and whereas the present complaint is filed on 5-2-2011 i.e., after 13 years of the transaction the complaint is barred by limitation and thus the complaint 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-51.  On the other hand, the opposite parties also filed their affidavit evidence and got no documents marked.

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2.  Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

    (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by her? 

    (iv)  To what effect? 

6. Point No.1:- It is the case of the complainant that she joined as a member in the scheme run by the opposite parties and paid all the installments amount regularly upto 59 months and she reserved the plot No.140 ‘B’ block on 5-5-1997 on payment of Rs.1,440/- to the opposite parties.  The same is supported by the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-46 and letter of the opposite parties Ex.A-47. It is also the further case of the complainant that inspite of making payment of the amount for the entire installments also the opposite parties did not neither register the sale deed nor refund the amount inspite of several approaches made by the complainant and having no alternative the present complaint is filed.   

7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the opposite parties while relying upon number of decisions reported in 1) 1992 STPL (CL) 511 NC (Manick Chand Srenik Kumar Bansilal Vs. Telecommunication, Karnataka Grade & another), 2) 2002 STPL (CL) 180 NC (Kandimalla Ragavaiah & Co. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.), 3) 2003- STPL (CL) 295 NC (Saligram Ramesh Chandra Vs. Punjab National Bank), 4) 2003 STPL (CL) 546 NC (K.G. Kumaran Vs. Dr. Santharam Shetty), 5) 2005 STPL (CL) 794 NC (U.N. Patil through P.A. holder S.R. Ujjankop Vs. L.K.S. Murthy and Co.), 6) 2005 STPL (LE) 35105 SC (Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. B.K. Sood), 7) 2006 STPL (CL) 967 NC (Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.), 8) 2006 STPL (CL) 591 NC (M.G. Sharma Vs. Incharge EPFO),   contended that as per the very complaint the present complaint is filed after 13 years of completion of the alleged scheme as such the complaint is barred by limitation and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant while relying upon two decisions reported in 1) 2005(2) CPR 1 (NC) (Juliet V. Quadros Vs. Mrs. Malti Kumar and others), 2) 2010 CPJ 194 (NC) (Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Haryana Petro Chemicals Ltd.) contended that cause of action continues till the opposite parties give possession of the land by executing a registered sale deed or refund the money as demanded by the complainant, and in the case on hand the opposite parties failed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant or refund the money, as such the complaint is not barred by limitation.    

9. A perusal of the material placed on record coupled with the copy of brochure Ex.A-48 and the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-46 and copy of the letter of the opposite parties Ex.A-47 clearly go to show that the complainant joined as a member in the scheme run by the opposite parties and paid the amount of the scheme.  A further perusal of the record clearly goes to show that as per Ex.A-46 the complainant paid Rs.1,440/- to the opposite parties firm for reservation of the plot No.140 ‘B’ block.  It is a fact borne out from the record that the opposite parties till the date of filing of the complaint not executed the sale deed in respect of the reserved plot No.140 ‘B’ block in favour of the complainant nor refunded the amount to her inspite of the demand made by her for several times.  In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant reported in 2005 2 CPR 1 (NC) it is held that where the developer failed to give possession of land or refund the money as demanded by complainant cause of action would be continuing and consumer complaint would not be barred by limitation.  In the case on hand also it is clearly established by the complainant that even after making payment of the amount for all the installments as can be seen from Exs.A-1 to A-47 the opposite parties failed to register plot No.140 ‘B’ block to an extent of 133.33 Sq. yards failed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant till the date of filing of the present complaint.   Therefore in view of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant we hold that the cause of action continues and therefore the complaint is not barred by limitation.  In view of the said circumstances the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties are not applicable to the case on hand for the reason that the facts and circumstances of the cases in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties are different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.  Hence we find that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties. 

10. Point No.2:- It is the case of the complainant that she joined as a member in the scheme run by the opposite parties and she was allotted membership No.3100.  It is also the further case of the complainant that as per the housing plots scheme the period is for 59 months and every member has to pay Rs.160/- per month, that accordingly total amount of the scheme was paid regularly, and that thereupon the opposite parties after completion of the scheme period failed to register the plot No.140 ‘B’ block reserved by the complainant and later on failed to execute the sale deed inspite of the repeated demands made by the complainant. The complainant through the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-46 and the letter Ex.A-47 clearly established the said payments.  It is an admitted fact borne out from the record that even on the date of filing of the present complaint also the opposite parties failed to register the sale deed in respect of plot No.140 ‘B’ block in favour of the complainant nor refunded the amount paid.  At this stage, the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no relationship between them and the complainant and the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-46 filed in the case do not contain their signatures and therefore there is no liability to pay the amount nor register the plot in favour of the complainant.  But the opposite parties except their self styled testimony did not produce any proof in that regard.   The genuiness of the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-46 and Ex.A-47 is also not challenged by the opposite parties at any stage of their counter or proof affidavit except taking a vague plea that it does not contain their signatures.  A further perusal of the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-46 also clearly goes to show that they are issued by the opposite parties.  It is not the case of the opposite parties that they are no way concerned with the firm in question.  Therefore it cannot be said that there is no relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties. Hence we find that there is no substance in the contention of the opposite parties. 

11. The next contention of the opposite parties is that these opposite parties are not having any legal right to execute the registered sale deed pertaining to the said scheme.  But we are unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that Ex.A-49 is the copy of the sale deed said to have been executed by the opposite party No.2 in favour of one Smt. P. Prabhavathi. A perusal of the recitals of Ex.A-49 clearly goes to show that the opposite party No.2 is being represented by R. Prathap who in the capacity of Manager executed the sale deed to the other member of the scheme by name Smt. P. Prabhavathi on 21-8-2006. So having executed the sale deed original of Ex.A-49 in favour of the other member now the opposite party No.2 being represented by its Manager R. Prathap cannot go back and say that he is not having any legal right to execute the sale deed pertaining to the said scheme in favour of the complainant.  Likewise the opposite party No.1 who is the Managing Partner of the firm also executed sale deed in favour of one M.A. Shafiullah as evident under Ex.A-50.  So having executed the sale deed the original of Ex.A-50 in favour of other member now the opposite party No.1 being Managing Partner cannot go back and say that he is not having any legal right to execute the sale deed pertaining to the said scheme in favour of the complainant.  At another stage of their counter and the proof affidavit the contention of the opposite parties is that they are not having any liability to make register the plot as alleged by the complainant as these opposite parties never received any amount for execution of the same.  But this is the case where the complainant clearly established that she has paid regularly all the installments of the scheme.  The said part of evidence of the complainant is clearly corroborated by the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-46 and the letter Ex.A-47 in token of receipt of the payments made by the complainant towards the amount for all the installments and without challenging its genuiness now the opposite parties cannot go back and say that they are not having any liability to register the plot as alleged by the complainant on the ground that they never received any amount for execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant.  That apart, the opposite parties except their self styled testimony did not produce any proof contrary to the evidence produced by the complainant.  As per Exs.A-49 and A-50 the opposite parties having executed the sale deeds to other members failed to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant even after receipt of the total amount of the scheme.  The said act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service.  Under the said circumstances we hold that the complainant has clearly established the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to her and therefore the opposite parties are liable to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant as prayed for.  The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.     

       12. Point No.3:- In view of the findings given on point Nos.1 and 2, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by her together with some reasonable compensation and costs of the complaint.

     13. Point No.4:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of plot No.140 ‘B’ block in Sy.Nos.42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 leads to Jadcherla-Hyderabad opp: Mission Hospital, N.H.No.7 at Jadcherla and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by her since all these days and Rs.500/- 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 14^th day of September, 2011.    

 

    I agree                                                                                        I agree                                                           

 

 MEMBER                                      MEMBER                             PRESIDENT                       

  Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                      - Nil -                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

                        Ex.A-1: Original Receipt, dt.24.1.1993.

Ex.A-2: Original Receipt, dt.8.3.1993.

Ex.A-3: Original Receipt, dt.6.4.1993.

Ex.A-4: Original Receipt, dt.28.4.1993.

Ex.A-5: Original Receipt, dt.6.6.1993.

Ex.A-6: Original Receipt, dt.9.8.1993.

Ex.A-7: Original Receipt, dt.29.7.1993.  

Ex.A-8: Original Receipt, dt.9.9.1993.

Ex.A-9: Original Receipt, dt.3.11.1993.

Ex.A-10: Original Receipt, dt.3.11.1993.

Ex.A-11: Original Receipt, dt.13.1.1994.

Ex.A-12: Original Receipt, dt.5.3.1994.

Ex.A-13: Original Receipt, dt.5.3.1994.

Ex.A-14: Original Receipt, dt.5.4.1994.

Ex.A-15: Original Receipt, dt.26.4.1994.

Ex.A-16: Original Receipt, dt.26.4.1994.

Ex.A-17: Original Receipt, dt.26.4.1994.

Ex.A-18: Original Receipt, dt.8.8.1994.

Ex.A-19: Original Receipt, dt.6.10.1994.

Ex.A-20: Original Receipt, dt.6.11.1994.

Ex.A-21: Original Receipt, dt.6.1.1995.

Ex.A-22: Original Receipt, dt.9.2.1995.

Ex.A-23: Original Receipt, dt.2.3.1995.

Ex.A-24: Original Receipt, dt.8.4.1995.

Ex.A-25: Original Receipt, dt.5.5.1995.

Ex.A-26: Original Receipt, dt.5.6.1995.

Ex.A-27: Original Receipt, dt.4.9.1995.

Ex.A-28: Original Receipt, dt.5.10.1995.

Ex.A-29: Original Receipt, dt.7.12.1995.

Ex.A-30: Original Receipt, dt.3.1.1996.

Ex.A-31: Original Receipt, dt.9.2.1996.

Ex.A-32: Original Receipt, dt.8.3.1996.

Ex.A-33: Original Receipt, dt.8.4.1996.

Ex.A-34: Original Receipt, dt.8.5.1996.

Ex.A-35: Original Receipt, dt.9.6.1996.

Ex.A-36: Original Receipt, dt.8.7.1996.

Ex.A-37: Original Receipt, dt.6.8.1996.

Ex.A-38: Original Receipt, dt.8.9.1996.

Ex.A-39: Original Receipt, dt.2.10.1996.

Ex.A-40: Original Receipt, dt.9.12.1996.

Ex.A-41: Original Receipt, dt.9.12.1996.

Ex.A-42: Original Receipt, dt.9.1.1997.

Ex.A-43: Original Receipt, dt.2.3.1997.

Ex.A-44: Original Receipt, dt.2.3.1997.

Ex.A-45: Original Receipt, dt.9.4.1997.

Ex.A-46: Original Receipt, dt.5.5.1997.

Ex.A-47: Copy of Letter, dt.26.7.2011.

Ex.A-48: Photostat copy of Brochure.

Ex.A-49: Photostat copy of Sale Deed, dt.29.8.2006.

Ex.A-50: Photostat copy of Sale Deed, dt.27.7.1999.

Ex.A-51: Original Photos.

  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.