State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Narne Cosntructions Pvt. Ltd vs Srikanth Vedantham on 18 November, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD FA No. 405/2009 against CC.No.606/2008 on the file of the District Forum-III, Hyderabad Between: Narne Cosntructions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, Office at Nio.1 , Gunrock Enclave, Karkhana, Secunderabad 500 009. .. Appellant/OPP. Party. And Srikanth Vedantham, S/o Sri.V.Ramachary, R/o Plot No. 38, Sri Venkateswara Colony, Lothukunta, Tirumulgherry, Secunderabad .. . Respondent/Complainant. Counsel for the Appellant : M/s M.Haribabu Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Nissaruddian Ahmed Jeddy. QUORUM: SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARSIMHA RAO HONBLE MEMBER.
And Sri.T. ASHOK KUMAR ..
.. HONBLE MEMBER.
Friday, The Eighteenth Day of November, Two Thousand Eleven.
Oral Order (As Per Sri.T.Ashok Kumar Honble Member) ******
1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful opposite party as against the orders dated 09.01.2009 in CC 606/2008 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 case of the complainant in brief is that he joined as a member with the OP for purchasing a plot in Central park II, Kondapur, Hyderabad and paid initial amount of Rs.25,200/- on 27.10.1995. The balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was payable in monthly instalments till June,2000. Accordingly he paid all the installments towards the cost of the plot and development charges by 1.10.2000. But the OP failed to register the plot in favour of the complainant in spite of repeated requests/representations made by him.
The complainant received a letter dated 12.2.2004 from OP wherein it was confirmed receipt of entire payment.
Further informing the complainant that the development work was completed and HUDA approval was also obtained and that registration would be taken up shortly another letter dated 6.5.2004 was received by the complainant from the OP wherein it was requested to remit Rs.45,000/- towards registration charges and Rs.15,000/- towards additional development charges. The complainant sought for clarifications for additional payment and remitted Rs.18,000/- towards registration charges and also submitted all relevant documents. even after receipt of the said amount and documents for two years, OP failed to register the plot and on 17.1.2006 a demand notice for Rs.70,000/- towards additional plot costs for five square yards was sent to the complainant and a further demand of Rs.58,250/- towards registration charges and Rs.15,250/- towards development charges were also made. Believing that OP has obtained all final approval he paid Rs.1,43,500/- to the OP on 17.1.2008 and submitted required documents for registration. The complainant paid additional amount of Rs.76,250/- towards registration and Rs.31,500/-
towards development on 2.12.2006 and obtained no due statement dated 30.12.2006. The OP failed to obtain HUDA approval of the lay out and therefore members of the lay out were forced to incur further expenses in getting regularized their purchased plots under the regularization scheme. In spite of all the said additional payments the OP failed to register the plot in favour of the complainant. Again OP demanded a further sum of Rs.1,93,000/- which the complainant refused to pay and he communicated the same vide his letters dated 18.10.2007, 12.4.2007 and 14.6.2008. ultimately a legal notice was also sent to OP on 10.7.2008 but there was no response from it. All the lapses aforesaid on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in service and hence the compliant for a direction to OP2 to hand over original registered document NO. 1331/2007 pertaining to Plot No.222, central Park II Kondapur and ancillary reliefs described in the complaint.
3. OP filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and disputing the claim and the brief facts of the counter are as under:
The complainant has applied for allotment of a plot in the residential project Central Park in S.No. 218/5, Kondapur Village, in Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District on 18.10.1995 and plot No. 222 was allotted to him and that the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- along with application and a sum of Rs.21,000/- towards initial amount after such an allotment and the balance amount of Rs.1,04,000/- was to be paid by him in 52 instalments @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from December, 1999 till March, 2000. Plots were allotted by prior conditions that on condition that plots would be registered after final sanction of lay out by HUDA and that due to re-alignment of the lay out as per HUDA guidelines, the complainants plot gained an area of five square yards and thus Rs.14,000/- was demanded on 17.1.2006 towards the additional area. Since the cost of the development charges increased considerably over the period of time of allotment, the OP demanded further amount of Rs.15,250/- towards additional development finally paid the amount in the month of December, 2006 and then OP executed an agreement of sale on 2.12.2006 in favour of the complainant for 305 Sq. Yards of land in plot NO. 222 of the said venture. OP faced several hurdles in obtaining the final sanction of layout from the ULC authorities. Originally ULC Act of 1976 was not applicable to the lay out but in the year 1980 A.P.State Government issued a G.O. including the villages of Kondapur and Madinaguda in the urban Agglomeration making ULC applicable to the said lands. In 1989 vide G.O. 733 the Govt. relaxed the urban land holding in the peripheral area to 8 acres of extent. The land in the lay out was held by 12 persons and thus provsions of ULC Act were not attracted and they were not required to submit any declaration seeking exceptions. OP had to pay hefty amount to get the lands regularized and therefore requested the complainant and others to deposit Rs.1,52,000/- per plot towards ULC charges and Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance charges and in the mean while neighbourer of the central park residential development filed a land grabbing case against the OP and it is still pending. While the matter thus stood, a special officer and competent authority under ULC passed orders dt. 30.7.2007 vide proceedings No. H2/151/94 to 153/94 directing the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to resume the lands to the Government declaring the lands in Kondapur and madinaguda villages are vested with the Government. The subject matter of this case forms part of those lands. Against the orders of the special officer, OP and others filed appeals before Chief commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. in bath of appeal cases Nos. Hyd/82/2007 etc. and CCLR passed orders on 24.3.2008 setting aside the orders of the said special officer dated 30.7.2007 and remanded the matter to the Special officer for fresh computation of the matter and orders and in view of the said facts title of the ands was in dispute with the Government and therefore OP could not execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and that in conducting the said cases OP appointed lawyers and met incidental charges of Rs.1,52,000/- and other incidental charges of Rs.30,000/- with prime motives to clear the land from clear hurdles. Until ULC issues clearances the HUDA will not grant final lay out. The representative of the allottees also got impleaded in the ULC during the pendency of matter before CCLA and the complainant has time and again requested the OP to register the plot under the prevailing situations and to alleviate the eagerness of the complainant the OP executed sale deed vide Doc. No. 1331/2007 in favour of the complainant in respect of the said plot and the complainant was in the knowledge of all the said circumstances under which OP executed the sale deed and that in such circumstances there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both sides filed her evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleading and marked Ex.A.1 to A.41 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex.B.1 to B.13 were marked for the OP.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed Ops to register plot 222 in Sy.no.218/5. Central park Phase II, Kondapur for an extent of 305 Sq. Yds in favour of the complainant, hand over the registered document to him and to pay Rs. One lakh towards compensation along with costs of Rs.2,000/- and other reliefs were not granted.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful Ops filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the impugned order are arbitrary, illegal and without any appreciation and basis and that the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer and that OP explained in detail the reasons for collection of additional development charges etc. and that in spite of it passed impugned orders mechanically and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and thus prayed to allow the appeal.
7. Heard both sides with reference to their respective contentions in detail further the respondent filed written arguments.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable?
9. There is no dispute that the complainant joined as a member with the OP for purchasing a plot in Central Park II, Kondapur, Hyderabad and paid total amount of Rs.2,20,000/- towards costs of the plot, Rs.30,500/- development charges and Rs.1,52,200/- registration charges totaling to RS.4,03,000/- as on 13.12.2006.
10. Some of the reliefs claimed by the complainant were refused by District Consumer Forum and no cross appeal is filed on such a decision by the complainant, there is no need to discuss about them in the matter.
11. Admittedly, plot No.222, in Survey No.218/5, Central Park Phase II, Kondapur measuring 305 Sq. yds has already been registered by the OP in favour of the complainant before filing of the complaint itself such circumstances direction of District Consumer Forum to OP to register the plot stands complied with and the said prayer become infructuous. There remains return of such a registered sale deed to the complainant, payment of Rs.One lakh compensation and costs of Rs.2000/- and the said aspects so also jurisdiction aspect is discussed as under:
12. The contention of the Opposite party is that the contents of the complaint disclose that the OP committed breach of contract and therefore the complainant 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 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 for a 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 no a consumer does not hold any water and as such it is decided against the OP.
13. The opposite party has been collecting the amounts towards development charges as well as registration charges along with sale consideration. It did not give the break up figures as to how it could claim particular development charges. Unless the amounts collected towards development charges is known, it is not fair on its part to collect development charges from the complainant without furnishing the details as to how it was assessing the amounts towards development charges. According to the complainant, extra five yards land was not available on the spot but there is no dependable evidence in the said context in the shape of surveyors report etc. and therefore no credence need to be given for such contention.
When originally OP agreed to sell the land to the complainant at the rate of Rs.500/- per Sq. yard for the said extra land it was reasonable to collect Rs.2,500/- and therefore collecting Rs.14,000/- per Sq. Yard according to existing market rate in 2006 also could not be appreciated. It appears that since the OP threatened to cancel the allotment under pressure the complainant has paid extra amounts grand totaling to Rs.4,03,000/-. Whenever, it collects the development charges, it is obligatory on the part of OP to describe the developments that were made by it from time to time so also the amounts spent for such development from and out of the amounts paid by the complainant. Even though the complainant paid all the registration and other charges by December, 2006 it did not register the plot in favour of the complainant. Having floated the venture, it was the duty of the OP to take all necessary sanctions and clearances before the plots were offered for sale to the public but admittedly it did not do so and on the other hand on the pretext of taking necessary sanctions and clearances from time to time the OP went on claiming money which is certainly unfair on its part. The material on record in this case establishes that the opposite party went on making additional demands in the grab of development charges, in spite of the fact that the complainant paid the entire sale consideration and also the development charges as agreed and in such circumstances the opposite party could not have demanded any additional development charges. When once the amounts demanded by the agreement were paid in full, there was absolutely no right for the OP to make additional demand. Definitely such additional demand would be outside of the purview of the agreement it is evident from the record that the complainant had given ample time to the OP in registering the plot. The stamp duty and registration charges were payable by the complainant at the time of registration and contrary to the contents of the agreement, the OP has collected Registration charges from the complainant much prior to the registration of the sale deed. Having registered the plot duly the OP should have handed over the registered sale deed to the complainant but it seems to extract or squeeze more money it was retained by the OP and certainly it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, so also, collecting of extra amounts. All the said lapses on the part of OP certainly created mental agony and financial hardship to the complainant and therefore the District Forum was justified in awarding a global compensation of Rs. One lakh and the same needs no interference, so also, costs of Rs.2000/-.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, there is a need to modify the order with regard to registration of the plot as the same has already been done.
14. In the result the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directed the appellant/opposite party to hand over the original registered sale deed bearing No. 1331/2007 pertaining to plot No.222, Central Park, Phase II, Kondapur to the respondent/complainant and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs as ordered by the District Forum. Further, the appellant/OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousands only) to the respondent/complainant towards costs of this appeal. The relief granted by the District Forum in favour of the complainant directing the OP to execute a registered sale deed is set aside as such a registration has already been done. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER MEMBER Dated 18/11/2011 Kvr.