State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gur Prakash Singh Ahuja vs M/S. The Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd on 28 November, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HYDERABAD. FA.NO.64/2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.827/2007, DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD BETWEEN: 1.Gur Prakash Singh Ahuja, S/o. Gurdeep Singh Ahuja, Aged about 54 Years, India, Occ: Business, 2.M/s. Jas Prakash Singh Ahuja, S/o. Gurdeep Singh Ahuja, Aged about 49 Years, Indian, Occ: Business, (Both are resident of H.No. 784/VI-5) Bazar Gandhanwala, Amritsar-143 001) ... Appellants / Complainants AND M/s. The Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd., Gurnock Enclave, Secunderabad-500 009. Rep. by its Managing Director. . Respondent/ OPP. Party Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. V.Gouri Sankara Rao Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. D.Venkat Reddy QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR, HONBBLE MEMBER MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN Oral order:
(Per Sri R.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Honble Member.) ***
1.
The unsuccessful complaints are the appellants. They are brothers and residents of Amritsar, Punjab. They had paid Rs.25,000/- each to the respondent for purchase of two plots in East City, Sector-4. The plot No.XA-38 was allotted in favour of the 1st appellant and Plot No.XA 39 in favour of the 2nd appellant. As the development charges had not been paid their allotment was cancelled through cancellation letter dt.26-6-2006.
2. Challenging the cancelation of allotment of the plots the appellants had filed complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed their complaint on the premise that the appellants failed to pay development charges as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the in the membership application form. As also they had not paid registration charges and stamp duty to be borne by them as per the rates prevailing at the time of registration of sale deeds. The District Forum has taken into consideration of the correspondence between the appellants and the respondent company and held that they cannot state that they are not aware of their liability to pay development charges.
3. In order to substantiate their claim the appellants have filed their affidavits and the documents, Exs. A1 to A19. On behalf of the Respondent Company its General Manager Col (Retd). N.Ranga Rao filed his affidavit and Exs.B1 to B13.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum complainants have filed the appeal contending that the respondent company had not informed them about the amount payable towards development charges, payable to the respondent company as also the membership form does not disclose exact amount payable towards development charges. It is contended that the respondent company has not developed the venture for about 15 years and demanded them an amount of Rs.76,607/- and Rs.66,076/-.
5. The point for consideration is:
(i) Whether the appellants are entitled to the re-location of, Cancellation of the allotment of the plots?
6. The amount of Rs.25,000/-
paid by each of the appellants to the respondent company for purchase of plots and allotment of plot Nos. XA-38 and XA-39 in Sector-4, East City in favour of the appellants No.1 and 2 respectively is not disputed. The appellants challenge the cancellation of the allotment on the premise that the respondent company had not informed them about payment of development charges as also that the allotment letter does not contain exact amount payable towards development charges. The appellants contend that the respondent company has demanded 300 times more than the cost of the plot as development charges and interest.
7. The plots were booked in the year 1983. The appellants had not paid development charges for the plots allotted to them. The appellants had taken different pleas regarding development charges and resist the cancellation of the allotment on the premise that they were not informed about payment of development charges. The amount to be paid as development charges is not mentioned in the allotment letter as also payment for development charges by the respondent company is about 300 times of the cost of the plot allotted to them.
8. There has been correspondence between the parties in the shape of letters marked as Exs. A5, A6, A9 to A16 and Exs. B2 to B28 and the entire correspondence indicate the respondent company demanding the appellants for payment of development charges. The appellants got issued notice through their counsel for which the respondent company had given reply. The cancellation letter dated 21-9-2007 comprehends as a consequence to the failure of the appellants in payment of development charges and interest of delayed payments, the allotment of the plot was cancelled as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the membership application form. In the teeth of contents of the letters addressed to the respondent company the appellants cannot pretend ignorance of their liability to pay development charges to the respondent company. Demand for development charges is stated in the affidavit by the Managing Director of respondents as:
As per clause No.7 of the membership agreement, it was agreed specifically by the complainants to pay the developmental charges as notified in quarterly circulars/ letters. We have sent numerous letters and circulars calling upon the complainants to come forward, pay the developmental charges and register the same. The complainants are taking for granted the tentative allotment of plots as of their own and claiming the rights over the same without paying the legally payable dues.
Developmental charges from the year 1993.I vehemently deny the allegations of the complainants that we are demanding exorbitant developmental charges and are re-allotting the plots to new customers at higher price. We are maintaining the venture in a habitable condition for the past more than one-and half decade and incurred heavy expenditure. The complainants were informed on several occasions through letters, circulars (viz., letters dt.23-8-1999, 3-4-2011, 24-7-2001, 3-8-2001, 25-11-2002, 8-11-2003, 24-12-2003, 26-06-2003, 16-08-2004, 15-12-2004, 6-4-2003) to pay the developmental charges and register their plots. We have given ample time and information to the complainants to pay the legal dues and get the plots registered on their names, but they did not come forward and instead have approached this Honble Forum to seek unwarranted gains.
9. The respondent company is within its limits to demand the development charges and interest on delayed payments. However, the registration charges cannot be demanded by the respondent company from the appellants for registration of the sale deed as it is the duty of the appellant for registration charges. We are not concerned with the registration charges payable by the appellants as the cancelation of the allotment of the plots is not visited by any arbitrary and invalid reasons. Much light has been passed through the letters received and filed buy the appellants demanding them to pay the development charges and no where the appellants had not denied their liability nor they question the demand for payment of development charges on the premise of the respondent company asking for without exercising development operations of the venture. In any view of the matter, the appellants have not established their plea that they were not aware of their liability to pay development charges and the respondent company had rendered deficient service by counsel the allotment of the plots. The appeal devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the district Forum in the circumstances of the case. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER Dated:28-11-2011