State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Narne Estates (P) Ltd. ... vs R. Prameela, Secunderabad on 28 December, 2012
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 963/2011 against CC. No. 55/2009 on the file of District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad. Between : M/s. Narne Estates (P) Ltd Rep. by its Director Col. Narne Ranga Rao Office at No. 1, Gunrock Enclave, Karkhana, Secunderabad 500 009. Appellant/opposite party And Smt. R. Prameela, W/o R. Kondaiah, Hindu, aged 70 years, Occ : Housewife R/o H.No. 42, West Marredpally, Road, Secunderabad ., Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K. R. Koteswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao Coram ; Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member
And Sri T. Ashok Kumar ..
Honble Member Friday, the Twenty-eighth Day of December Two Thousand Twelve Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) *****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party as against the orders dated 24.09.2009 in CC 55/2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under :
The complainant was allotted Membership No. 9119 by the OP on 06.06.1992 for the purpose of purchase of 3 plots ie L-3, L-4 and L-45 initially admeasuring 820 sq. yards in total and later was allotted plots bearing Nos.L-45, L-10 and L-11 in Sector IV, East city, Bibinagar, Nalgonda District and the sale consideration is @ Rs.19,200/-, Rs.82,000/- development charges , Rs.13,120/- towards stamp duty and registration charges. She paid Rs.1,14,320/- in monthly installments along with a sum of Rs.11,062/- towards interest on delayed payments. Despite paying entire payment and several representations to register the plots in her favour, she was served a revised statement of account dated 12.07.2007 to pay Rs.1,85,880/- towards enhanced development, stamp duty and registration charges and also made an additional claim amount of Rs.7,200/- towards maintenance charges which is illegal. To a legal notice got issued on 09.06.2008, there was no reply from the OP and thus the complainant prayed to direct the OP to execute registered sale deed in respect of the plots allotted to her and to pay Rs.one lakh towards compensation and costs.
3. OP filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under :
The complaint is covered under the Specific Relief Act and it is not maintainable under the C.P. Act and hence the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is admitted allotment of plot nos. L-3, L-4 and L-45 in the month of June, 1992 to the complainant initially but later she was allotted plot nos. L-10, L-11 and with L-45 which was increased to 320 sq. yards and hence she was requested to pay the increased yardage amount at Rs.100/- per sq vide letter dated 13.02.1995. yard. Despite correspondence, she defaulted in paying installment amounts. She failed to pay Rs.200/- per sq. yard towards development charges in the year 2007 and that there is no deficiency in service on their part and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
04. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed OP to register the plots bearing No. L-10 ( admeasuring 250 sq. yards) , L-11 ( admeasuring 250 sq. yards) and L-45 ( admeasuring 320 sq. yards in total 820 sq. yards in Sector IV, East City, Bibinagar, Nalgonda District in favour of the complainant, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for inordinate delay and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
.
Aggrieved by the said orders, the opposite party preferred the above appeal on several grounds and mainly contending that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and that she she has to approach civil court and that the dispute is not a consumer dispute and that the complainant did not make payment of monthly installments and also did not pay the development charges, additional development charges, registration charges etc and thus became defaulters and that despite knowing the fact that complainant had encashed the cheque amount which was returned by the OP by cancelling the plot blindly the District Forum passed the impugned order and that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and that the contentions of the OP raised in the District Forum were not appreciated properly and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the orders.
Now the point for consideration is, whether the orders of the District Forum is sustainable.
7. The contention of the Opposite party is that the contents of the complaint disclose that the OP committed breach of contract and therefore she ought to have approached a civil court for redressal and the Consumer Forum ought not to have entertained the complaint and thus attacked the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in entertaining the complaint. In several decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India and Honble National Commission held that that the development of land for the purpose of selling it as plots and house sites after duly adding value by way of providing infrastructure, obtaining lay outs and other permissions from the local government etc. constitutes by itself a kind of service and in that view of the matter when a person purchases a plot from the developer he not only purchased the plot but also the service associated with it. The recent decision of Supreme Court in Fakir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008 (4) CPR 449 (SC) fortifies this view. Since the complainant purchased a plot from the OP/developer he comes within the meaning of a consumer . Further, the Honble High Court of A. P. in Batch of writ petition nos. 28246 of 2009 etc.. vide orders dated 13.08.2010 held that consumer Fora do not suffer lack of jurisdiction to entertain complaints in such matters.
Therefore, the contention of the OP on the point of jurisdiction and also that the complainant is not a consumer does not holds any water and as such it is decided against the OP.
There is no dispute that the complainant had joined as member in the venture floated by the OP initially to purchase plot nos. L-3, L-4 and L-45 in sector IV admeasuring 820 sq. yards of land in total in the month of June, 1992 agreeing to pay total sale consideration comprising of cost of the plot development charges and registration charges. It is also not in dispute that plot nos L-10,L-11 and L-45 were allotted to her and that she was requested to pay increased yardage amount @ Rs.100/- per sq. yard vide letter dt. 13.2.1995. Ex A5 and B7 letters addressed to the complainant disclose that the complainant was informed that there has been an increase in the yardage of the plot no. 45 to 320 sq. yards and consequently sale consideration was revised to rs.19,200/-, development charges to the tune of Rs.32,000/- and registration charges to Rs.2,560/- . Ex B8 copy of the statement of account dated 4.3.1995 discloses that complainant had paid total cost of the plot of Rs.19,200/- but the balance of Rs.22,200/- towards development charges and registration charges of Rs.2,560/- were due. Ex. B19 letter addressed by the OP to the complainant discloses that there was a change in the plot allotment of the complainant to plot No. L-10 , L-11 and L-45 in sector IV total measuring to 820 sq. yards. Important document Ex. A8 is the statement of account dated 24.10.2002 issued by the OP to the complainant in respect of the said changed plots and it established that the complainant had paid total amount of Rs.21,120/- towards cost of the plot, Rs.82,000/- towards development charges, Rs.19,.120/- towards registration charges and Rs.11,062/- towards interest grand totaling to Rs.1,32,302/- and the balance under the all said heads is shown as zero. The OP did not impeach the evidentiary value of the said document by any convincing means and with the said document we are also convinced to hold that by 24.October, 2002 the complainant paid total amount towards cost of the plot , development charges, registration charges and interest in respect of plot nos. L-10, L-11 and L-45 measuring 820 sq. yards in Sector IV, Block I, East city and nothing was due by her to OP. The OP did not establish with any convincing evidence that she was due of any additional development charges.
There is no dependable evidence from the OP side that such and such developmental activities were under taken at the site and that so much of amount of expenditure incurred by it in undertaking such developmental works. Break up figures of individual development works have not been given. No documents such as authenticated copies of Accout Books etc were filed to establish that in fact such and such amounts were spent in undertaking the development works. Therefore, the contention of the OP that the complainant became defaulter and did not pay the additional developmental charges and maintenance charges could not be appreciated in its favour.. None for the documents marked by OP support its claim in respect of the amounts so demanded by it towards additional development charges and maintenance charges. Payment of stamp duty and registration charges required to be made at the time of registration of the sale deed. Therefore, collecting the amounts from the complainant towards the registration charges and retaining the same with it certainly amounts to unfair trade practice. In such circumstances, even though stamp duty and registration charges are increased, for collecting and retaining the registration charges and also for not registering the plots even though it received total amount by 24.10.2002, we are of the view that the OP has to bear the enhanced stamp duty and registration charges and the complainant need not be saddled with it. As already described supra, even though the total amount was paid by the complainant by 24.10.2002 on some pretext or the other the OP did not execute registered sale deed and certainly it amounts to deficiency in service. The District Forum discussed all the said aspects in the order under appeal in correct manner and there are no reasons much less valid reasons to interfere with the finding of the District Forum in the said context. The OP itself contended that nearly 12000 plots in East city have been registered by it in favour of its members who have paid the total sale consideration including the maintenance charges and in such circumstances its objection that it agreed to register the plot to member only after final sanction of layout by DCTP is of no consequence in its favour and on such pretext it cannot avoid registration of the plot. The complainant having demanded for execution of sale deed she will reap consequences if any in the said context but OP cannot avoid registration on such pretext. The opposite party contended in ground no. 27 of the memorandum of appeal that the OP cancelled the plot and had sent the cheque amount to the complainant and that she had enchased the cheque amount. There is no dependable evidence from the side of OP in the said context. The learned counsel for the OP submitted that inadvertently such a ground was mentioned in the grounds of appeal. In the circumstances of the case, Rs.,5,000/- granted by the District Forum towards compensation is not exorbitant for the inordinate delay caused in registration the plots so also Rs.2000/- towards costs. Thus viewed in any point the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.
In the result, the appeal is allowed confirming the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER MEMBER DATED : 28.12.2012.