State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Gaddam Venkatesham vs C.V. Radhakrishnamurthy on 6 December, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
FA. No. 512/2018
AGAINST ORDERS
IN
CC. No. 371/2015
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA
REDDY
Between :
1. Mr. Gaddam Venkatesham, S/o. Narayana,
Director in Lakshmi Enclave, Kubera Township
& Managing Partner of Kubera Townships.
2. Master Shanmukha, S/o. Venkatesham,
Aged about: 16 years, Occ: Student.
3. Master Hemanth Kalyan, S/o. Venkatesham,
Aged about: 14 years, Occ: Student.
All are R/o. Plot No.3, 02nd Floor,
Shivapuri Colony, Opp: Sai Function Hall,
L.B. Nagar to Saroor Nagar Road, Ranga Reddy
Distract - 500035.
...Appellant/Opposite parties No. 2 to 4
And
Mr. C.V. Radhakrishnamurthy, S/o. Gopala
Krishnaiah, Aged about: 72 years, Occ: Retired Service,
R/o. Flat No. 202, Soukariya Homes, Plot No. 112,
H.No. 11-12-150/202, Road No.3, Sri Ramakrishnapuram,
Hyderabad - 500102, Ranga Reddy District.
...Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant/Opp. parties No. 2 to 4: M/s. Nerusu Srinivasa
Rao
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Mr. G.A. Padmanabha Rao
& Mr. K.R.L. Sharma
QUORUM: Hon'ble Sri V.V.Seshubabu, Member (M-J),
&
Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member (N-J)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE.
*****
2
ORDER :(HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER JUDICIAL)
1. The appeal is filed on U/s.15 of C.P. Act, 1986, aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy, dt.06.03.2018, in CC. No. 371/2015, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.7,10,000/- with interest @12% p.a., from 03.08.2011 till realization; to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.15,000/- within one month in default the amount of Rs.7,10,000/- shall carry interest @24% p.a.,.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Plot No. 96 to an extent of 300 Sq. yards covered by Sy. No. 523, Bhudan Pochampally Village in the layout made by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 who are the partners in Lakshmi Enclave, Kubera Townships and paid Rs.4,30,000/- by 23.11.2009; that subsequently, the opposite parties cancelled the sale deed made in favour of complainant on the ground that, the plot was fallen to the share of adjacent land owner; that they have executed another registered sale deed along with an agreement of sale, and both the documents bears the date i.e., 01.08.2011 conveying title in respect of plot NO. 56 admeasuring 494 Sq. yards, in Lakshmi Enclave covered by Sy. NO. 523; that they have also agreed to develop the plot within 24 months; that the total sale consideration including the cost of registration etc., was fixed @Rs.7,10,000/-, out of which acknowledged the receipt of Rs.4,30,000/-, made under the previous sale deed; that they have failed to develop the plot as agreed upon and the complainant even came to know that neither the Gram Panchayats nor HMDA or DTCP issued any permission for the layout; that several times the complainant requested for completion of the development but there was no progress, and so, issued the 3 legal notice, dt.27.06.2015 demanding refund of the amount of Rs.7,10,000/- with interest; hence, the complaint.
3. The brief averments of the written version of opposite parties are that the complainant is put to strict proof of all the averments made in the complaint by except those that are admitted; that all the permissions and sanctions were issued by the concerned authorities for the layout; that there is no deficiency in service, but admitted the receipt of Rs.4,30,000/- and also about execution of two respective sale deeds; that the complainant not approached the commission with clean hands; with this requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. Before the forum below complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A24 and MO1. Second opposite party filed evidence affidavit as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B8. Both sides filed written arguments and made oral submissions. Pending disposal of the complaint the first opposite party Smt. Gaddam Pavani, W/o. Second opposite party died and the opposite parties No. 3 & 4 being children were impleaded vide orders in IA. NO. 203/2016, dt.06.09.2016.
5. The forum below settled the following points for discussion, viz.,
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
(ii) To what reliefs?
6. The forum below passed the order on merits as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 filed the present appeal with the following grounds:-
(i) The order under appeal is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
(ii) The forum below failed to observe that after execution of sale deed the complaint is not maintainable.4
(iii) The forum below ought to have gone through the written versions and documents filed by the opposite parties and it should have dismissed the complaint.
(iv) The forum below failed to observe that the complainant never demanded for the completion of development activities and only interested to get refund of the amount which is not maintainable. With this requested to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the forum below.
7. Now the points for determination in the appeal are:-
(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service or negligence by the opposite parties towards the complainant?
(ii) Whether the order of the commission below is sustainable under law?
(iii) Relief?
8. Points Nos. 1 to 3 :- Heard the arguments on both sides. For the sake of convenience the parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the complaint. Admittedly, opposite party No.1 who is the wife of opposite party No.2 and mother of opposite parties No. 3 & 4 died pending disposals of the complaint. The opposite parties NO. 1 & 2 are the partners in Lakshmi Enclave. As per Ex.A2 agreement of sale opposite party No.1 being the Managing Partner of Kubera townships sold, Plot No.96 to an extent of 300 Sq. yards to PW1, for Rs.4,50,000/- and acknowledged the receipt of Rs.4,30,000/- and agreed to receive the balance of Rs.20,000/- after completion of developmental activities. Ex.A3 is the sale deed dt.23.11.2009, for the plot No.96.
9. Ex.A1 goes to show that, opposite party No.1 entered into another agreement of sale dt.01.08.2011 in respect of Plot No.56 to an extent of 494 Sq. yards for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,16,300/- and also mentioned that the sale deed under Ex.A3 was cancelled and also acknowledged receipt of Rs.4,30,000/- made under Ex.A2 & A3. Two years' time was fixed from the date of registration of sale deed the complete all developmental activities 5 like (i) BT roads (ii) Drainage/Sewerage System (iii) Over Head Tank/Water supply system (iv) Electric lines with street lights and Transformer (v) Club House (vi) Park (vii) Children's play Ground (viii) Swimming Pool. Ex.A4 is the sale deed executed on the same day i.e., 01.08.2011 in respect of the plot No.56. Ex.A6 & A7 goes to show that, the opposite parties have also received Rs.2,80,000/- subsequent to Ex.A4. It shows the opposite parties have altogether revived, total sale consideration of Rs.7,10,000/-. However, failed to complete the developmental activities, but they are still liable to receive another Rs.6,300/- from the complainant. Ex.A8 dt.28.02.2015 is showing the status of the project as on 28.02.2015. As per the same, the balance to be received was at Rs.6,300/- and further mentioned that the development works as mentioned in the agreement and brochure as partially completed. So, it is forgone conclusion that the developmental activities have not completed. Ex.A15 is the legal notice dt.27.06.2015 issued by complainant to the opposite parties NO. 1 & 2 demanding to the refund of amount with interest @12% p.a., from 03.08.2011.
10. When developmental activities are not completed the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount irrespective of the fact, whether the opposite party had permissions or not to make the layout. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are partners. Whereas, opposite parties No. 3 & 4 were impleaded being legal representative of opposite party No.1. Therefore, their liability shall be restricted to the extent of estate they have received from the opposite party No.1. The limitation continues for filing the complaint, as long as the opposite parties failed to compete the developmental activities or till the date they have refused the perform. In the case on hand, never the opposite parties refused the perform to complete the 6 developmental activities. So, all the pointes are answered against the appellant.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/- by confirming the order in CC. NO. 371/2015 dt.06.03.2018 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Reddressal Forum, Ranga Reddy District, with an observation that their liability shall be restricted to the extent of estate they have received from the opposite party No.1. The complainant is entitled to receive the amounts if any deposited by the appellant towards part satisfaction of the impugned order. Typed to the dictation to the steno on system, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on 06.12.2023.
SD/- SD/-
------------------------------------------------
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(NJ)
Dated : 06.12.2023.
BSR