State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Narne Estates Pvt Ltd vs Major Svs Raju Retd on 28 December, 2023
1
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RP.NO. 68 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDERS IN
IA.NO.156 OF 2023
IN
CC.NO.262 OF 2022,
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD.
Between:
M/s.Narne Estates Pvt.Ltd.,
Represented by its Chairman and
Managing Director,
Col Ranga Rao Narne (Retd.),
S/o.N.V.Naidu,
Having office at 1 Gunrock Enclave,
Secunderabad, Telangana - 500 009.
...Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1
And :
1.Major SVS Raju (Retd), S/o.Late Sri S.V.Narasimha Raju, Aged about 79 years, Occupation: Retired Defence Employee, R/o.Sagi Sadan, H.No.7-55, Shankar Nagar, Near Uppal Bus Depot, Hyderabad - 500 039.
....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Gram Panchayat Bibinagar Represented by its Secretary, Bibinagar Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagir District.
....Respondent No.2/Proposed Opp.Party No.2 Counsel for Revision Petitioner/Opp.Party 1: M/s.J.Venkata Narasimha Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant : Party-in-person Counsel for Respondent No.2/Proposed Opp.Party No.2: Notice served QUORUM:
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER-JUDICIAL THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ****** Order: (Per Hon'ble Smt.Meena Ramanathan, I/c President) 2
1. This Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, under Section 47(1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying this Commission to set aside the order dated 20.06.2023 in IA.No.156/2023 in CC.No.262/2022 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad and allow the Revision Petition hereby allowing the IA.No.156/2023 to implead the Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar as Opposite Party No.2 in the C.C.
2. The Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 filed the IA.No.156/2023 under revision to implead the Gram Panchayat Bibinagar as Opposite Party No.2 in the present CC.No.262/2022. The IA.No.156/2023 was dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2023 aggrieved by which the Petitioner has preferred the said Revision Petition. The Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 filed a Re-
open petition vide IA.No.1935/2023 U/s.151 of CPC for the purpose of filing written arguments. The same was allowed and both parties filed their written arguments which have considered and addressed in our discussion.
3. The brief facts of the complaint and the history of the present case is necessary to be understood before addressing the grounds urged in this Revision Petition.
4. The Respondent/Complainant is presently 79 years old and has been enduring the pain of fighting his cause and case for the past 33 years. The Complainant bought 4 plots in East City project of Narne Estates, Bibinagar with his retirement benefits in the year 1989. The Petitioner/Opposite Party sought to cancel his membership on the ground of not having paid the development charges by the Respondent/Complainant. This was challenged by the Complainant by filing CD.No.147/2009 in District Commission-III, Hyderabad and the Commission allowed the complaint and EA.No.101/2009 in CD.No.147/2009 was settled between both sides by filing a memo of full satisfaction.
35. After filing the memo of full satisfaction which was duly signed by both parties, the Respondent/Complainant filed CC.No.59/2011 before the District Commission-I, Hyderabad seeking a direction from the Opposite Parties to demarcate the plots as per the registered sale deeds and put marking stones in the presence of a Commissioner appointed by the District Commission.
6. The complaint was partly allowed vide order dated 24.02.2012 in CC.No.59/2011 and both parties preferred appeals vide FA.No.432/2012 and FA.No.554/2012. Both the appeals were dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 16.11.2012, confirming the order of the District Commission in CC.No.59/2011. The Respondent/Complainant herein filed EA.No.47/2012 before District Commission-I, Hyderabad for execution of order dated 24.02.2012 in CC.No.59/2011.
7. Further, the Respondent/Complainant filed two petitions in EA.No.47/2012 in CC.No.59/2011. IA.No.328/2013 was pronounced on 24.10.2013 and the observation in the order of the District Commission-I, Hyderabad reads as follows:
"The affidavit filed in support of the above application the Petitioner/Complainant states that he filed IA.No.88/2013 in EA.No.47/2012 in CC.No.59 of 2011 seeking direction to Station House Officer, Bibi Nagar to provide protection to carry out demarcation and marking of boundary stones for (4) plots bearing Nos.75,76,77 & 78 situated at Block B, Sector-III in Survey No.585 of Bibinagar Village. Other facts stated in the affidavit of the petitioner with regard to case between Mr.Ajay Kumar Mohta Vs. SVL Real Estate & others which is not referred in the present application in the present case. It is seen the Advocate Commissioner was appointed who with the assistance of Surveyor and Gram Panchayat sanctioned plan identified the plots belonged to the 4 petitioner and also handed over the physical possession of the property to the petitioner.
In the above circumstances we are of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to make any enquiry in that regard and petitioner also has given written acknowledgement in his own hand writing in that regard.
In view of the above we are of the considered view that the present petition is not maintainable.
In the result, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Under circumstances no costs."
8. IA.No.329/2013 was also pronounced on 24.10.2013 and the observation of the District Commission-I, Hyderabad reads as follows:
"The affidavit filed in support of the above petitioner/complainant states that he filed IA.No.88/2013 seeking direction to Station House Officer, Bibi Nagar to provide protection to carry out demarcation and marking of boundary stones for (4) plots bearing Nos.75,76,77 and 78 situated at Block B, Sector-III, in Survey No.585 of Bibinagar Village. Thereafter Advocate Commissioner was appointed by order dt.10.7.2013 for demarcation of the plots. That the Advocate Commissioner took the assistance of Surveyor working with the respondents by name Mr.Dayanandam and in the presence of petitioner for demarcation of plots was done. Petitioner further states that the Advocate Commissioner stated that with the help of Mr.Dayanandam identified the Gram Panchayat and DTCP. The Petitioner states that even though the plots, did not state as to who handed over to him the said lay out. The petition states he was not given copy of sanctioned lay out of Grampanchayat. As such states that the said Advocate Commissioner along with surveyor are to be summed for cross examination.5
In the counter filed by the opposite parties, the opposite parties states that Advocate Commissioner identified the plots and delivered the physical possession of the same to the petitioner and obtained acknowledgement in proof of taking over possession. The said acknowledgement is in the hand writing of petitioner himself. On the basis of the above the opposite parties states that once the petitioner has accepted the correctness of the plot dimensions and took possession of the same the petitioner is estopped from making an attempt to conduct roving enquiry. The opposite parties states that Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the surveyor and with the help of layout of Gram Panchayat and DTCP identified and handover the plots to the petitioner. As such petitioner is not entitled to make enquiry in that regard. It is seen from the records that after Advocate Commissioner was appointed. Advocate Commissioner with the help of surveyor and lay out plan sanctioned by Grampanchayat and DTCP identified plot Nos.75,76,77 and 78 and handed over the physical possession of the same to the petitioner, and the petitioner has also given acknowledgement in his own handwriting in such circumstances petitioner is not entitled to make objection with regard to Advocate Commissioner identifying plots and handing over the said plots to the petitioner.
In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to cross examine the Advocate Commissioner and surveyor. In view of the above this petition is dismissed under circumstances no costs.
In the result, the petition is dismissed. Under circumstances no costs."
9. Since the plots were demarcated and possession handed over as per the registered sale deeds and conforming to the rules of the DTCP layout, the Complainant applied for permission to construct 6 his house and permission was denied by the Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar due to non-clearance of LRS as per HMDA rules.
10. Thereafter, the Respondent/Complainant filed yet another C.C. vide No.262/2022 before the District Commission-I, Hyderabad seeking the following directions as mentioned:
(A) To direct the Opposite Party to sort out GIFT DEED and Layout issue with Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar and get House Construction Permission without any further delay as per his own commitment made to the court.
OR (B) In case the Opposite Party and Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar cannot sort out issues and the Complainant is not given building permission, the Opposite Party can allot fully developed alternative plots of same size, dimension and configuration where all approvals are available along with the building permission.
In addition (C) Grant a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the physical pain and mental agony suffered by the Complainant during the last 20 years. The Complainant is a military veteran aged 78 years.
(D) Award the cost of Complaint Rs.1,00,000/-. (E) Grant punitive damages under relevant section of C.P.Act,2019.
(F) Grant any other relief in the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
Total claim - Rs.11,00,000/-.
11. The issue that requires to be understood is that the Respondent/Complainant has been fighting continuously seeking reliefs that ought to have been taken care by the Petitioner/Opposite Party.
12. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar denied the house construction permission vide letter dated 26.07.2014 - Ex.A29. A perusal of this exhibit is essential to understand the dogmatic 7 approach and attitude of the Petitioner/Opposite Party. As per the said exhibit, the plots belonging to the Respondent/Complainant bearing Nos.75,76,77 & 78 situated at Block-B, Sector-III in Survey No.585 of Bibinagar Village, although demarcated by the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed by order dated 10.07.2013 did not carry the necessary permission accorded by the Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar.
13. In Ex.A9, the Respondent/Complainant has referred to the assurance given by the Petitioner/Opposite Party vide their memo filed in EA.No.47 of 2012 in CC.No.59 of 2011 before District Commission-I, Hyderabad dated 12.03.2014. It is important to refer to this memo filed vide Ex.B6 and the same is reproduced for emphasis.
"It is respectfully submitted that on previous adjournment, this Hon'ble Forum has orally instructed the Opposite Party to file proof of payments made to Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar in relation to layout submitted for sanction and also advised to liaison with the Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar to help the Petitioner in getting the building plans sanctioned on the plots purchased from Respondent. In pursuance of such oral instructions, the Opposite Party herewith filing the receipts/challans in proof of payments made to Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar pertaining to layout and also a letter submitted to Gram Panchayat expressing its inclination to help the Petitioner to get the sanction accorded in his favour. In fact the Respondent/Opposite Party is committed to the welfare of its members in all possible ways not only to preserve their properties but also to get the building plan sanctioned from Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar. Hence this memo."
14. The promise to get the building plan sanctioned was given by the Petitioner/Opposite Party way back in the year 2014 but obviously the assurance given was not pursued with the same fervour or commitment as stated in the memo.
815. When the Petitioner/Opposite Party has been in charge of the development of the land and has developed the same into the approved layout as per the approval accorded by the Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar, now to file this petition to implead the Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar as Opposite Party No.2 in the present CC.No.262/2022 is nothing but a farce and a shameful reflection of their callous attitude of empty promises and assurances given to their customers who had invested their hard-earned money in buying plots in their venture.
16. The Gift Deed filed vide Ex.B8 dated 24.02.2016 is substantial evidence that the Petitioner herein has the required approval, therefore, now after almost seven years to seek to implead the Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar is not fair and only amounts to gross negligence and in defiance of the earlier assurance given to the Respondent/Complainant. The gift deed- Ex.B8 is not endorsed by the Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar and the Petitioner/Opposite Party have not filed any material evidence to support their assurances given to the Respondent/Complainant herein.
17. As per Ex.A29, a careful reading reveals that the Petitioner/Opposite Party failed to provide the gift deed and the said plots bearing Nos.74, 75, 76 & 77 belong to Respondent/Complainant are not in accordance with DTCP layout which are submitted to Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar.
18. The hurdles mentioned are that the plot numbers as per the registered document and the DTCP layout are at variance and not tallying and the boundaries are also not tallying. It is also mentioned that Survey No.585 is in dispute, hence, the permission is not granted and therefore, for all these reasons permission to build was not given to the Respondent/Complainant. If all these objections are clarified, they will grant the building permission.
19. The Commission below has rightfully discussed all these issues and passed a well-reasoned and lucid order in IA.No.156/2023 being challenged in this Revision Petition. The 9 construction permission was denied due to variations found in the DTCP layout plan and the registered document and it is the sole responsibility of the Petitioner/Opposite Party to take the steps to clarify the objections raised by the Gram Panchayat, Bibinagar and avoid further delay as this is the third round of litigation and any consideration to entertain this petition will only set a wrong precedent specially when there is no legal scope to entertain the present Revision Petition.
20. We are also relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Ashish Vohra Vs. Raheja Developers reported in IV (2023) CPJ 5 NC wherein it has been categorically observed that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the party that the Petitioner/Opposite Party is seeking to implead.
"We have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. The opposite party has filed IA/1335/2023, for impleading Haryana Urban Development Authority and Gurugram Municipal Development Authority as the opposite parties in the complaint. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and Haryana Urban Development Authority and Gurugram Municipal Development Authority. Scope of consumer dispute cannot be enhanced. IA/1335/2023 is rejected."
21. We are further of the considered opinion that the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 has been prolonging the litigation for more than 3 decades and precious time of the Respondent/Complainant and this Commission has been expended. There must be a curtailment to such petitions and in view of the gross unfairness and negligence, we impose a total cost of Rs.20,000/- on the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 to be paid as directed to the Respondent/Complainant and the Consumer Legal Aid Account, TSCDRC, Hyderabad.
1022. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable confirming the order of the District Commission. The Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay costs of Rs.20,000/- in the following manner:
Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Respondent/Complainant and Rs.10,000/- to the Consumer Legal Aid Account, TSCDRC, Hyderabad.
Time for compliance is four weeks.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER-J
Date: 28.12.2023
*UC