National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kumari D. Umabala & Anr. vs B. Laxmikantha Rao & Ors. on 7 June, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2893 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 02/06/2017 in Appeal No. 105/2014 of the State Commission Telangana) 1. KUMARI D. UMABALA & ANR. D/O LATE DEVULAPALLY EADHA KRISHNA MRUTHY, OCCUU:GOVT. SERVICE R/O FLAT NO. 103, H.NO 3-45 HANUMN NAGAR CHAITANYAPURI DISLUKHNAGAR HYDERABAD ANDHRA PARADESH 2. SMT. B KALPANA RATHITHA W/O SRI B PRAHLADA RAO OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O FLAT NO. 302, H.NO 3-45, HANUMAN NAGAR CHATANYAPURI, DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD ANDHRA PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. B. LAXMIKANTHA RAO & ORS. S/O LATE B, NARASIMHA RAOD OCDCD: PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT R/O FLAT NO. 303, H.NO. 3/45/A/303, KRISHNA KUNJA APARTMENTS, HANUMAN NAGAR CHAITANYAPURI, DILSUKHNAGAR HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. SRI S. SRINIVAS S/O PADMAIANH MANAGING PARTNER M/S SRI SAI DATTA CONSTRUCTION, R/O 17-1-391/1/124, SARSWATHI NAGAR SANKESHWAR BVAZAR, SAIDABAD, HYDERABAD ANDHRA PRADESH 3. SMT. K. ARUN W/O K CHADRESEKHER ROA, OCC: EMPLOYEE, R/O FLAT NO. 202, H. NO. 3-45, CHAITNYAPURI DILSUKHANGAR, HYDERABAD ANDHRA PARESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Veeranjaneyulu K. Proxy counsel
For Mr. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 07 Jun 2018 ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Kumari D. Umabala & Anr. against the order dated 02.6.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.105 of 2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are the owners of flat No.303, 3rd floor, Krishna Kunjam Apartments, while the respondent No.1 is the complainant and respondent No.2 is the builder of the apartments. The petitioners sold the said flat No.303 on 3rd floor, Krishna Kunjam apartments to respondent No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 15.04.2002.
3. Complainant purchased flat on the third floor of the building constructed by the respondent No.2 (builder) for Rs.5,11,000/-. Possession was duly handed over to the complainant. It was alleged in the complaint that the sanctioned plan of the Apartment was not handed over despite repeated requests. In April, 2008, complainant received a demolition notice from authorities alleging illegal construction. Thereafter, after obtaining copy of the sanctioned plan from the authorities under RTI, complainant came to know that the opposite parties had obtained sanction for construction only upto 2nd floor. Complainant got illegal construction on 3rd floor regularised by paying Rs.79,000/- to the relevant authorities. The complainant then filed complaint seeking recovery of the amount paid from the opposite parties. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad, (in short 'the District Forum') vide its order dated 17.01.2014 partly allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties No.1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay Rs.79,000/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.2,000/-.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2014, the opposite party Nos.2 & 4 preferred the appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the State Commission.
5. Hence the present revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in agreement condition No.3 it is clearly stated that the party of the second part i.e. the builder, shall construct the multistoried building on the said property with their funds after duly obtaining the permission from the competent authorities, Gram Panchayat/HUDA at their sole effort and funds and for the purposes the parties of the first pat shall assist in filling the forms and sign the forms and documents wherever it is necessary. It is further declared by both parties that parties of the first part is not at all responsible nor liable for taking permission and construction of the multistoried building according to the specification and for any deviation from the permission/sanction. It was stated that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the District Forum had erred in not considering that the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant for the alleged unauthorised construction of the Flat sold by the petitioners to the respondent in the year 2002, but the complaint was filed in the year 2011, after a long gap of 9 years and the said complaint was hit by the law of limitation. The State Commission further failed to appreciate that the District Forum had erred in not considering that the recovery of alleged amount spent/paid by the respondent No.1 to the Municipal Authorities in the year 2009 does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and instead of filing the complaint, the respondent No.1 should have filed a suit for recovery.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the material on record. It is admitted by the petitioners that the petitioners sold the flat on the third floor to the respondent No.1/complainant in the year 2002. When the complainant received the notice of demolition of his flat on the third floor, then he found out the reason for such demolition notice. At that time, he came to know that building plan was approved upto second floor only and third floor was illegally constructed. In this context, the argument of the leaned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted that the building plan was got approved by the builder and therefore, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the same. The fact is that the petitioners have sold the third floor to the complainant and as owner of the property which was subjected to development agreement, the petitioners must be in the knowledge of the fact that the third floor was illegally constructed. When they were party to the development agreement and have signed the application forms for approval of the construction plan, they are supposed to know the approved plan by the concerned Municipal Corporation, even though the same was got approved by the builder.
9. Coming to the question of limitation raised by the learned counsel, it is very clear that the cause of action only arose when the complainant received the notice for demolition of his house. Then he got the offence compounded by paying the due amount and therefore, the cause of action continued till he paid the amount to the Municipal Corporation. The complainant had initially paid Rs.10,000/- on 29.04.2008 and later Rs.44,000/- on 30.10.2009. Thus, the complete amount was paid by 30.10.2009 and the complaint has been filed on 16.6.2011. Thus, the complaint is within limitation as the main complaint is for refund of the paid amount to the Corporation.
10. I also see no merit in the arguments of learned counsel that the complainant should have filed a suit for recovery of the amount from the petitioners. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been enacted to provide better protection to consumers and where the consumer disputes are decided in a summary manner and consumers get relief quickly. When such a beneficial legislation is available wherein the complaint can be filed (and the same has been filed) why should the complainant go for a suit for recovery in a civil court? The case of the complainant is very well covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and clearly the petitioners have cheated the complainant by adopting unfair means. Hence, the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 was very much maintainable.
11. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition, which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No.2893 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER