State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Vvr Housing India Pvt. Ltd., vs V. Sreenivasulu, on 26 March, 2014
BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. FA 448 of 2013 against CC 75/2012, Dist. Forum, Tirupathi Between: 1) M/s. VVR Housing India Pvt. Ltd., By its Chairman and Managing Director, V. Vasudeva Rao, S/o. V. Ranga Rao, Flat No. 206 & 211, 2nd Floor, Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500 38. 2) M/s. VVR Housing India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Executive Director, Plot No.1, Annamayya Circle (Air Bypass Road), Tirupati 517 501. *** Appellants/ Opposite Parties And 1) V. Sreenivasulu, S/o. V. Ramaiah, Aged 70 years, Senior Citizen. 2) Smt. V. Rajeswari, W/o. V. Sreenivasulu, Aged 67 years, Senior Citizen. Both are R/o. Flat No.401, Ramakrishna Paradise, SVIMS Circle, Reservoir Road, Tirupati 517 501. *** Respondents/ Complainants Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. G. Rajesham Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. S. Prasada Rao CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT & SRI R. LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
Oral Order: 26/03/2014.
(Per Honble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President) ***
1. The un-successful Opposite Parties viz., M/s. VVR Housing India Pvt. Ltd., are the appellants and they challenged the order dt. 25.2.2013 made in CC 75/2012 on the file of Dist.
Forum, Tirupathi whereby the Dist. Forum while allowing the complaint filed by the respondents herein directed the appellants/Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.12,46,884/- to 1st complainant and Rs.4,10,183/- to 2nd complainant (including proportionate costs). Complainants one and two are also entitled for interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint that is 20.11.2012, till the date of realization, on Rs.7,01,000/- and Rs.2,01,000/- respectively and also awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.
2) The factual matrix of the case in brief is that the complainants being attracted by the House Property Development Scheme floated by the appellants/Opposite Parties booked four plots by paying Rs. 2,000/- towards membership fee. They remitted Rs. 4 lakhs on 16.6.2008, Rs. 1 lakh on 10.5.2009 and Rs. 4 lakhs on 18.5.2009 in all they paid Rs. 9 lakhs towards part of sale consideration for the said plots. The complainants also entered into agreements of sale with the Opposite Parties believing their version that said venture would be approved by TUDA, Tirupathi. The enquiries made by the complainants under the RTI Act revealed that there are no approvals from the TUDA for the said venture. Despite several requests and the legal notice got issued by the complainants, the Opposite Parties neither registered the plots in their favour nor refunded the amounts paid by them. Vexed with their attitude, the complainants were constrained to approach the Dist. Forum for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 13, 25,884/- to 1st complainant and Rs. 4, 84,183/- to the 2nd complainant as claimed in the complaint.
3) The appellants/Opposite Parties filed counter denying the allegations made by the complainants. They contended that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. As the complainants failed to pay balance sale consideration they did not register the plots in their favour. The complainants never approached the Opposite Parties for refund of amount. There is no deficiency of service on their behalf and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4) The Dist. Forum after accepting the written version, affidavit evidence on behalf of both parties and also after hearing both sides it framed the following points for consideration:
i). whether this Forum is having jurisdiction?
(ii).Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(iii). To what relief?
5) Having considered the entire material on record i.e., Exs. A1to A17 marked on behalf of complainants, the Dist. Forum came to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties and in those circumstances, the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount and accordingly while allowing the said complaint awarded the said amounts. As stated supra, the same is questioned before us by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
6) The learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction for the reason that the lis between the parties is in the form of civil litigation and it has to be decided only by a competent Civil Court but not by the Dist. Forum. It is his further submission that the Dist.
Forum awarded interest @ 15% p.a., from the date of payment till the date of complaint which is highly excessive. He further argued that the respondents/complainants have paid part payments. They never have come forward to get the plots registered though the appellants expressed their willingness to get the plots registered.
7) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants stated that believing the version of the appellants they parted with huge amounts and in those circumstances, the Dist. Forum has rightly concluded that the respondents/complainants are entitled for interest @ 15% p.a., from the date of payment till the date of filing of the complaint and interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint till the date of realization.
8) Heard.
9) So far as the jurisdiction aspect is concerned, there cannot be two views with regard to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. When there is an agreement of sale between the parties and the aggrieved person wants to get the said agreement executed, he has to approach Civil Court for redressal by filing a suit for specific performance. Similarly, if there is any dispute, with regard to the title, he can as well approach Civil Court and file a suit for declaration of title. In the instant case, though the facts are identical, the complainants approached the Dist. Forum sating that there is deficiency of service on the part of appellants/Opposite Parties. In those circumstances, this Commission has to look into the aspect whether there is deficiency of service or not. Apparently, the respondents herein parted with their amounts as early as in the year 2008-2009 i.e., Rs. 4 lakhs on 16.6.2008, Rs. 1 lakh on 10.5.2009 and Rs. 4 lakhs on 18.5.2009. After receipt of said payments, both parties entered into agreements of sale. Thereafter the appellants/Opposite Parties did not get the plots registered in favour of the complainants. No doubt, it is true that the complainants have an option to approach Civil Court and file a suit for specific performance but it does not mean that they cannot approach the Dist. Forum under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act provided they establish the factum that there is deficiency of service.
When the appellants/Opposite Parties had collected an amount Rs. 9 lakhs and got the agreements of sale executed and did not turn up, in our considered view, it can only be said that it is nothing but deficiency of service. In those circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Dist. Forum as well as this Commission have jurisdiction to entertain a lis of this nature.
10) Very recently the Honble Apex Court in Haryana State Agricultural Marking Board Vs. Bishamber Dayal Goyal & Others in Civil Appeal No. 3122 of 2006 decided on 26-3-2014 succinctly observed that :
We would reiterate that the statutory Boards and Development Authorities which are allotting sites with the promise of development, are amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer forum in case of deficiency of services as has already been decided in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors.[(2009) 4 SCC 460]; Karnataka Industrial Areas and Development Board v. Nandi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.[(2007) 10 SCC 481]. This Court in Narne Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC 359] referred to its earlier decision in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [(1994) 1 SCC 243] and duly discussed the wide connotation of the terms consumer and service under the consumer protection laws and reiterated the observation of this Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (supra) which is provided hereunder :
5. In the context of the housing construction and building activities carried on by a private or statutory body and whether such activity tantamount to service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act, the Court observed: (LDA case, SCC pp. 256- 57, para 6): when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it is as much service as by a builder or contractor. The one is contractual service and the other statutory service. If the service is defective or it is not what was represented then it would be unfair trade practice as defined in the Act.
11) So far as the interest is concerned, it is true that the Dist. Forum awarded 15% interest which in our considered view is on the high side, and the same is required to be reduced to 9%. In those circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed reducing the said interest from 15% to 9% p.a., and the appellants are hereby directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 9 lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a., from respective dates of payment till the date of realization. Excepting the said modification with regard to the interest part of the order, other amounts which were ordered to be paid by the Dist. Forum stand unaltered. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER *pnr UP LOAD O.K.