BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.712/2007 AGAINST C.C.No.691/2003 DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between:
Sri Chakradhara Nataraj Kumar
S/o.late Ramachandra Rao
Hindu, aged 44 years,
Residing at D.No.45-40-37,
Besides Kinnera Bakery
Akkayyapalem Main Road,
Visakhapatnam-530 016. Appellant/
Complainant
A N D
Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority
Represented by its Vice Chairman
Situate at Udyog Bhavan
Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. Respondent/
Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Ch.R.Vasantha Kumar.
Counsel for the Respondent:-Respondent served.
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER,
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order( Per Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
***
This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant assailing the order that went against him.
The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:
The complainant secured allotment of a flat constructed by the opposite party way back in 1993/1994. Subsequently he was inducted into possession, however in the preliminary documents constituting the conditions and terms of allotment, there is specific mention about the price of the flat being tentative and liable to be revised. Subsequently in terms thereof the opposite party revised the price of the flat and demanded from the complainant the payment of the balance amount due to it by virtue of its proceedings of which Ex.A15 dated 14-11-2002 spelt out the final demand. Intermittently the complainant went on resisting the proposal of enhancement of the price demanded by the opposite party. Apart from his grievance against the additional demand, he also tried to make out several ancillary grievances as disclosure of details of escalation, furnishing the particulars of the site, removal of the encroachments and delivery of the site free from all encumbrances and direction against collection of penal interest, payment of compensation and costs. As could be seen from the averments in the complaint, the property that was allotted to him was a flat.
The opposite party after entering appearance stoutly resisted the claim by filing a counter contending inter-alia that the additional demand was made only by virtue of one of the terms in the allotment contract which is obviously in more than one piece and it did not lie in the mouth of the complainant to raise flimsy pretext like demanding the details etc. with a purpose of avoiding payment. The opposite party also expressed amazement as to the demand of the complainant for the delivery of the site and removal of encroachment which was totally irrelevant in the matter of flats.
In support of his case the complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A16. The opposite party also filed an affidavit and they did not however rely upon any documents.
After hearing both sides and perusing the documents, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant could not make out any case of deficiency justifying the grant of any relief as asked by him.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed the present appeal urging several grounds including the wrong reliance on the point of limitation and the failure on the part of the opposite party to furnish details of the demand etc.
Heard both sides. The point that arises for consideration is whether there are good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?
This is a peculiar case where the complainant contested the additional demand made by the VUDA strictly in terms of the allotment letter marked as Ex.A1, which provided for escalation of the price actuated by corresponding increase in the construction cost and unforeseen expenditure. It is pertinent to point out that Ex.A10 produced by no other than the complainant himself speaks of the complainant having taken possession of the flat in question in good condition as on 8-1-1997. It is only after the opposite party made a demand that the complainant became active to make out a cause or pick up a quarrel which it is not unreasonable to think meant to be used as a ruse to avoid the additional demand which was made after the complainant was put to notice of the same even in the earliest documents. The prayer also makes a cryptic reading in as much as he demanded the opposite party to furnish the factors and the details of escalation and, more than that, to direct the opposite party to remove the encroachment and deliver the site free from all encumbrances. The last mentioned aspect of removal of encroachments and delivery of the site free from all encumbrances makes an absurd reading in the context of delivery of a flat. Likewise even the prayer as to the furnishing the facts and details of escalation of the price is absurd. If really he is aggrieved he ought to have tendered evidence to show that what would be the correct price in his perception supported by evidence instead of making a allegation or making a vague demand as to the factors and details. Thus the complaint on the face of it appears to have to been engineered with an ulterior motive of dragging the demand of the opposite party in some kind of fierce litigation and thereby benefit and if possible evade the additional demand. Thus on the face of it the complaint suffers from two fundamental vices namely it is barred by limitation and vitiated by vague presentation of the grievance making it more or less incomprehensible as commented by the opposite party in its counter. Thus we do not see any merits in the appeal and the order passed by the District Forum cannot but be characterized as well considered and balanced.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
Sd/
MEMBER.
Sd/-
MEMBER.
Jm 22-10-2009
