National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Narne Estates Private Ltd. & Anr. vs Dr. E. Surender Rao & Anr. on 24 August, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 884 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 02/01/2017 in Appeal No. 333/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. M/S. NARNE ESTATES PRIVATE LTD. & ANR. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR COL. N. RANGA RAO, NO. 1, GUNROCK ENCLAVE SECUNDERABAD-500009 TELANGANA 2. M/S. NARNE ESTATES PRIVATE LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NIZAMABAD BRANCH, SR MALLAIAH COMPLEX, BESIDE KAPILA HOTEL, HYDERABAD ROAD, NIZAMABAD TELANGANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DR. E. SURENDER RAO & ANR. S/O. MUTYAM RAO, SAI SRI TIRUMALA HOSPITAL KHALEELWADI, OPP. RAJEEV GANDHI AUDITORIUM, NIZAMABAD-503003 TELANGANA 2. E. SRIDEVI SURENDER RAO W/O. DR. E. SURENDER RAO, SAI SRI TIRUMALA HOSPITAL KHALEELWADI, OPP. RAJEEV GANDHI AUDITORIUM, NIZAMABAD-503003 TELANGANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Advitiye Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Tuhin, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 24 Aug 2017 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, (ORAL)
The complainant/respondent booked a residential plot with the petitioners in scheme, namely, 'Golden Heights', Phase-1 at Medchal. Plot No.323 in the above-referred scheme was allotted to them for a consideration of Rs.4,80,000/-. The first instalment of Rs.1 lakh was payable at the joining of the scheme whereas the balance amount was payable in 36 monthly instalments. The allotment made to the complainants was cancelled by the petitioners vide letter dated 13.3.2014, on the ground that they had failed to make timely payment of the instalments. However, on 17.6.2004 the allotment made to the complainants was restored by the appellant. After restoring the allotment, the petitioner, instead of offering plot No.323 which had been allotted to the complainants, sought to offer plot No.335 on the ground that the plot No.323 had been sold by them. The changed plot, however, was not acceptable to the complainants who approached the concerned District Forum seeking conveyance of plot No.323 in their name or in the alternative refund of the amount paid by them along with compensation etc.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that though the membership of the complainant had been restored by them, they were justified in offering plot No.335 since plot No.323 had been sold by them.
3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed execution and registration of the sale deed of plot No.323 in favour of the complainants after receiving original cost of the plot from them. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 2.1.2017, the State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum and directed the petitioner to register either plot No.335 or any other plot of the choice of the complainants but having same measurements, from and out of the plots available with them. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Commission.
4. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was justified in seeking to offer a plot of its choice to the complainants on the ground that plot No.323 which had initially been allotted to the complainants was no more available. A perusal of the letter dated 17.6.2004 whereby the allotment made to the complainants had been restored, shows that the complainants had applied for restoration of their plot and their request was accepted by the petitioner subject to payment of outstanding dues by 25.6.2004. There was absolutely no indication in the aforesaid letter that the plot initially allotted to the complainants, i.e. plot no.323 was no more available with the petitioner and therefore, a plot of the choice of the petitioner would be allotted to the complainants. No plot number was in fact mentioned in the aforesaid letter dated 17.6.2004, thereby representing to the complainants that the allotment of plot No.323 in their favour had been restored on their request. In fact the subject of the letter dated 17.6.2004 was "GOLDEN HEIGHTS : PHASE-I MEMBERSHIP NO. : 1270 : PLOT NO.323 RESTORATION OF PLOT IN GH-I", which clearly indicated that it was plot No.323 which had been restored.
5. Even in the subsequent letter dated 16.7.2004 sent to the complainants there was no indication of change of number of the plot and the subject of the said letter dated 16.7.2004 also was the same as was the subject of letter dated 17.6.2004. It was only vide letter dated 21.8.2004 that the petitioner informed the complainants that their plot number had been changed to 335. The petitioner in my opinion could not have unilaterally changed the plot from plot No.323 to plot No.335, once they had restored the allotment of plot No.323 vide letter dated 17.6.2004.
6. Even if plot No.323 is no more available with the petitioner company, it has the liberty to register either plot No 335 or any other plot of the choice of the complainants having same measurement, out of the plots available with it. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners states that no plot at all is available with the petitioner company, I find that no such plea was taken before the State Commission. In fact, no such plea has been taken even in the revision petition. In the absence of such a plea, the oral submission made by the counsel cannot be entertained.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER