State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Ashutosh Shankar vs 1.M/S. Sbc Infra Projects Infra Pvt ... on 12 May, 2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE cONSUMER
DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
CC.NO.234 OF 2018
Between:
Sri Ashutosh Shankar,
S/o. Sri Braj Kishore Sinha,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Software Engineer,
And a resident of Flat No.303,
Zenith Residency,
Plot No.576-HIG, Kukatpally,
Rangareddy District, Telangana,
Represented by it's GPA
Dhirenddra Kumar,
S/o. Ram Prasad Singh,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Public Sector Service,
R/o. Flat No.111,
Carnation block, Ark homes,
Turkapally Village, Bolarum,
Secunderabad 500010 Telangana.
-
Complainant
And
1. M/s. SBC Infra Projects Infra Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director
Shri N.Ajay Babu,
Rgd. Office: 8-2-269/5/103,
Sagar Housing Society,
Road No.2, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad - 500034,
Telangana.
2. Murali Krishna Reddy Tummuru,
S/o. Late T.Koti Reddy,
Aged about 53 years,
Occ: Business/0 321 A, Road
No.25,
Jubli Hills,
Hyderabad - 500033.
Telangana.
3. The Assistant General
Manager,
State Bank of India, RACPC Branch,
Hanuman Tekdi, Abids,
Hyderabad 500011, Telangana. Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant :M/s. J. Sunil Kumar
Mr. N. Balu
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Ops., 1 & 2 Set
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: M/s. AVS Exparte.
Ramakrishna - OP3
MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO,
-
QUORUM:
HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER
(NJ) DAY OF MAY THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO **k**** (Per Hon'ble Smt. R. Rajeshree, Member-Non -Judicial) Order .1.T h i s is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties:
1. To provide immediate monetary compensation of Rs.93,35,886.64/- (Ninety three Lakhs Thirty five thousand Eight Hundred eighty six and sixty four paise only) to the complainant, for causing deficiency of service and subjecting the complainant to untold physical hard ship mental agony and such a delayed and deficient service had not only caused severe setback of the complaint's health condition but also has resulted in the loss of potential professional opportunities and the potential income arising out of such professional opportunities, by which the complainant was subjected to severe financial loss coupled with excessive physical strain and undue mental stress, the reasons and circumstances have been descriptively submitted herein in the complaint.
2. To grant such other relies. S
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The case of the complainant is that, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 had offered to sell an undeveloped flat under the designated project viz., "Pristine Place" and had made certain commitments to complete the work within a stipulated period.
Agreeing to the same the complainant decided to purchase one Flat in the said project and executed a Tri-party Agreement of Sale with Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 on 02.08.2008 vide document bearing No.017669 for Flat No.406, Block No.3 Pristine Place Residential Apartments, Gajularamaram, near UMCC, admeasuring 1611 square feet together with an undivided share of land of 48.33 Square yards for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,97,000/-. The Opposite Party No. 1 is the Developer and Opposite Party No. 2 is one of the owner who is holding a GPA on behalf of other owners and that the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.32,57,972/-
which includes the amount paid by him and also the amount sanctioned as loan by Opposite Party No. 3. Which is as follows:
SI.
No.
Date Amount Cheque Ban
No. To/Fromn
1. 27.05.2008 1,00,000/- 004773 Axis SBC Infra
Pvt. Ltd.
2.
Axis T.Murali
28.07.2008 2,10,000/-| 553010100091376 Krishna
ICICI
Reddy
T.Murali
3. 28.07.2008 49,700/- 000201012415
Krishna
SBI
Reddy
4. 26.05.2009 5,00,000/ 43297 By way of Bank SBC Infra
Pvt. Ltd.,
Loan
SBI
5. 18.08.2009 5,00,000/- 498293 By way of Bank SBC Infra
Pvt. Ltd.
Loan
SBC Infra
6. 02.03.2010 1,50,000/- 95683 Axis Projects
India Pvt.
Ltd.,
SBC Infra
7 Axis Projects
05.03.2011| 1,50,000/- 10085
India Pvt.
Ltd.
SBC Infra
8. 20.05.2011 Axis Projects
87,532/- 296024
India Pvt.
Ltd.,
3. But the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 failed to
keep up the
commitments made under the Agreement of Sale Had breached the terms of the Agreement. Complainant with the Assistance of Opposite Party No. 1 has applied for Home Loan with the Opposite Party No. 3 Bank and Opposite Party No. 3 though approved the loan under the terms and conditions of equitable registered or extension mortgage of land to an extent of Rs.26,05,000/- on 27.02.2019 but had sanctioned the same without even securingg the registered documents from Opposite Party No. 1 and had issued a letter of arrangements to the complainant and had directly disbursed the said loan amount to Opposite Party No. 1 without even informing the complainant, and that the complainant had already cleared the loan in the year 2017 and the Bank has issued a loan closure letter dated 06.02.2017 but subsequently, the complainant came to know that, in the year 2015 itself the said lat was sold by Opposite Party No. 1 to one Mrs.Taherrunisa Begum by way of a registered document dated 31.08.2015 and the said Mrs.Taherrunisa Begum had mortgage the said property with the Central Bank of India in the year 2016. That due to negligence of Opposite Parties of not securing the loan by way of proper documents the second sale had taken place.
Having come to know about the same the complainant had booked a Criminal Case for the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust against the Opposite Parties before VIth Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal. The Opposite Party No. 3 had disbursed a major sum of Rs.10,00,000/- directly to the Opposite Party No. 1 being the beneficiary without informing to the complainant. As per the Agreement it was agreed that, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 would complete the construction within 18 months from the date of Agreement but, failed to do so and inspite of several reminders the Opposite Parties failed to do so. Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 06.12.2017. The Opposite Parties though received the same failed to reply to the said notices. All these acts of the Opposite Parties had not only caused hardship and untold agony but also had adversely impacted the health of the complainant. As such, this complainant is before this Commission seeking monetary compensation and costs from the Opposite Parties.
4. The Opposite party Nos.1 & 2 remained exparte. As such, there is no written version or evidence affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 &2.
5. Opposite Party No. 3 filed a written version while admitting the grant of Home Loan but had pleaded that, it has nothing to do with the deficient acts of Opposite Party Nos. 1& 2and that the complainant has filed the present complaint in collusion with Opposite Party Nos. 1 &2 with an intention to extract money from Opposite Party No. 3 and that, there is no negligence on their part as the loan was sanctioned following all the directive of RBI and terms and conditions of loan agreement and that the complainant 6 with all falsc and is unnecessarily implicating this opposite party the baseless allegations. There is n o c a u s e of action arisen against had failed to prove Opposite Party No. 3 and that the complainant No. 3 as such the any negligence on the part of Opposite Party complaint be dismissed against Opposite Party No. 3.
6. Evidence affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant and Heard Op.No.3 filed. Opposite Parties 1 &% 2 remained exparte. both sides and perused the record.
1 The points that arises for consideration are,
1. Whether the complainant has made out a case of deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties? 2 Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint ?
3. To what extent ?
8. Point Nos.1 &2:-The specific case of the complainant is two fold (a). i.e., Opposite Party Nos. 1 &2 have failed to construct the flat as per specifications and had failed to deliver the flat within 18 months as agreed in the Agreement of Sale. (b). and Opposite Party No. 3 had not secured the documents which were given by Opposite Party No. 1 on behalf of complainant at the time of securing loan which has led to execution of one more sale deed by Opposite Party No. 1 in the name of one Mrs.Teharunnisa Begum in the year 2015 and that the bank i.e., Opposite Party No. 3 had continued collecting the EMls till 2017 from the complainant. As such the Opposite Party No. 3 is negligent of not securing 1 documents of complainant. In support of his case the complainant got marked Exs. A1 to A19.
9. On perusal of Ex.A3 it is observed that, it is a simple agreement of sale. Which conveys the right of immovable property ie., Flat No.406 as described under Schedule of property in Ex.A3. The said document is not accompanied with any plan or specifications for construction /development though it has a clause to that effect, for better understanding the said clauseis reproduced here:
The vendors have assured to construct the flat as per the plan; design and specification annexed here to and hand over possessing of the vendee within 18 months from the date of this agreement in complete finished stages in all respects.
Though the above clause mentions about design and specifications no such document is placed before this Commission, in the absence of any such document the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 can-
not be made liable for any deficiencies, secondly as far as the time limit of 18 months is concerned the complainant himself had stated during the oral submissions that a separate specific performance suit is filed in the Civil Court. As such, for the delay the complainant had already availed the other recourse available for him.
10. In the absence of any specific agreement or promise and assurance given by opposite parties with regard to specifications of be made construction. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 can-not. liable for any deficiencies.
11. Coming to the negligence as alleged on the part of Opposite Party No. 3 the contention of the complainant is that as the Opposite Party No. 3 had been negligent in securing the documents of complainant it has given rise to execution of a sale deed for the same property in the name of a third party.
12. However, the complainant has not disclosed as to what documents he has submitted before the bank and obtained the loan. Similarly the Opposite Party No. 3 had also not disclosed as to what security documents were collected by the bank prior to sanctioning the loan. In such the case grievance of the complainant that due to the negligence of Opposite Party No. 3. The documents slipped out of the bank which had led to the execution of Sale Deed in favour of 3rd party is not sustainable.
As per Ex.A13 Opposite Party No. 1 had executed the Sale Deed in favour of 3rd party, the bank cannot be made liable for the execution of any Sale Deed by Opposite Party No. 1 and under Ex.A16, the complainant had filed a Criminal complaint against all the opposite parties in such case the result of the criminal case will prove whether it is an criminal act by the employees of the bank or the negligence of the bank as an institution.
13. Moreover, under Ex.A15 the Opposite Party No. 3/ bank had addressed a letter to the complainant with regard to the closer of loan account and advised him to approach the RACPC-I Branch from the said letter it can be concluded that the loan account is closed and it is the duty of the complainant to collect the documents from the bank which were provided for securing loan. But as seen from the material borne by the record nothing is revealed as to what he did after the receipt of the said closure letter. Hence, for the latches of the complainant the bank can-not be made liable.
14. The complainant had collectively prayed for compensation against all the opposite parties it appears that the complainant himself is confused with regard to the deficiency of the opposite parties and as a criminal case is filed for the alleged criminal acts of bank employees the bank as a institution can-not be made liable for the acts of its employees.
15. Inview of the above discussions we are of the considered view that the complainant had not made out any case of deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite parties and had utterly failed to prove his case. The points are answered against the complainant.
16. Point No. 3 - In the result, the complaint is dismissed.