State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
T. Vikram Son Of Sri T. Krishna Murthy, ... vs 1.M.S. Prestige Avenues Limited, A ... on 7 July, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. FA/190/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/01/2014 in Case No. CC/382/2012 of District Hyderabad) 1. T. Vikram Son of Sri T. Krishna Murthy, AGed about 29 Years, Occ Business, R.o. Premises No.6.1.89 by 4 by B, Ganeshnagar, Mahabubnagar Presently residing at flat No.A.127, Happy Homes Apartment, Tilak Nagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1.M.s. Prestige Avenues Limited, A Limited Company having its registered office at 4th Floor, Tirumala Estates,3.6.262, Himayathnagar,, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri M. Venkateswara Rao 2. 2. M. Anand Kumar Son of Sri Thimmaiah, Guptha, Partner M.s. Prestage Avenues Ltd., R.o. Plot No.104, Jugunnath Residence, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad, Permanent R.o. 1.6.40 by 3, Station Road, Mahabubnagar, AP ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 07 Jul 2017 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD F.A.No. 190 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.382 OF 2012 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I HYDERABAD Between T.Vikram S/o T.Krishna Murthy Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business R/o Premises No.6-1-89/4/B Ganeshnagar, Mahbubnagar Presently R/o Flat No.A127 Happy Homes Apartment, Tilaknagar New Nallakunta, Hyderabad Appellant/complainant A N D M/s Prestige Avenues Limited A Limited Company having its Regd. Off: at 4th Floor, Tirumala Estates 3-6-262, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad Rep. by its Managing Director M.Venkateswara Rao M.Anand Kumar S/o Thimmaiah Gupta Partner M/s Prestige Avenues Ltd., R/o Plot No.104, Jugunnath Residence Vidyanagar, Hyderabad Permanent R/o 1-6-40/3, Station Road Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant M/s A.M.Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Served through paper publication Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Sri Manne Hari Babu QUORUM : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT & SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) *** This is an appeal filed by the complainant aggrieved by the orders of District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad, dated 28.01.2014 made in CC No.382 of 2014 in dismissing the complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The case of the complainants, in brief, is that the opposite party no.2 has agreed to sell 1000 sq.yards of developed plotted area in their Ocean Prestige Project on behalf of the opposite party no.1 to the complainant. Accordingly an agreement of sale was entered into by both the parties on 28.02.2007 and paid the full sale consideration of Rs.4,25,000/- to opposite parties and they have agreed to register the plot in the name of the complainant within one month of obtaining all the necessary sanctions. Subsequently the complainant made several representations to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 for registration of the plot but they failed to do the same. Meanwhile, in the year 2009, opposite parties vide their letter dated 22.08.2009 informed the complainant they have allotted Plot No.B2-242 and B2-249 in Block No.B2 for a total area of 1000 sq.yds and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.20,000/- towards registration fees. In the said letter it is also informed to the complainant they have cancelled the earlier allotment. Opposite parties have not given the particulars of the land except plot numbers. Hence, the complainant had got issued a legal notice dated 13.11.2009 to the opposite parties and the opposite parties gave reply with false and untenable allegations. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,25,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum together with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of the complaint.
4. The opposite party no.1 resisted the case contending that the complainant had purchased the site for resale which is for commercial purpose and the complaint is also time barred. Further the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party to purchase a plot of 1000 sft (five plots each one is having 200 sq.yds) in the proposed " Ocean Prestige" project. The opposite party no.1 acquired project site and the complainant entered into the agreement after verifying and satisfying himself about the said fact. It is also mentioned in the agreement that the development over the project site would be commenced as soon as the opposite party no.1 gets approvals form the concerned departments. Opposite party no.1 executed a registered sale deed No.547/2010 as agreed in favour of the complainant. Any consideration made by the complainant towards the investment in house plots for resale he cannot be termed as a ' consumer' and as such the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant was not in India as on the date of execution of Special Power of Attorney. Therefore, the authorization to file the present complaint is not maintainable. The alleged agreement filed by the complainant is forged one and also not having signature of the complainant on all pages as such the same is invalid under law. Hence, the opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Opposite party no.2 equally resisted the case contending that he is the only facilitator in between the complainant and the opposite party no.1 who has to comply the conditions of the agreement in all respects and opposite party no.2 is no way responsible. The complainant after verifying the project site had purchased the plotted area which has to be developed by the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 has been registering the plots in the name of the individual purchasers in their project where the complainant purchased the plotted area. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A11 while on behalf of the opposite parties, the Managing Director of the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.2 have filed their respective affidavits and the documents Exs.B1 to B19.
7. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint bearing CC No.382 of 2012 by orders dated 28.01.2014, as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.
8. Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It is contended that the District Forum failed to appreciate Ex.A5 reply notice of the opposite parties wherein they clearly informed the complainant to pay registration charges of Rs.20,000/- towards the plot and when the complainant has not paid the said amount the opposite parties have not registered the sale deed. The sale deed which is alleged to have been executed by the opposite party no.1 is a sham document. The District Forum erroneously came to a conclusion that the case involves complicated questions of fact and law where recording of evidence is required. The District Forum ought to have seen that when the signatures and thumb impressions were not clear it should be safely assured that the said signatures and thumb impressions were not affixed by the complainant. Hence, the complainant prayed to allow the appeal.
9. The counsel for the complainant and the opposite party no.2 had advanced their arguments reiterating their respective contents as stated in their pleadings besides filing the written arguments by the complainant. Heard both sides.
10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
11. There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased 1000 sq. yards of land in the venture , floated by the opposite parties by name, Ocean Prestige " at Rachakonda, Nalgonda District and he paid full sale consideration of Rs.4,25,000/- to them. It is contended by the complainant that except the plot numbers the opposite parties did not give particulars of land and hence he got issued legal notice to them. On the other hand, the opposite parties rebutted the same by asserting that they have already executed sale deed in favour of the complainant vide document no. 547 of 2010. It is further contended that the complainant was not in India on the date of execution of the special Power of Attorney and in the absence of any authorization the actions of the representatives becomes null and void. It is further contended by the opposite parties that the alleged agreement filed by the complainant was a forged one and it is not having the signatures of the complainant on all the pages. The complainant rebutted the same stating that registered sale deed in favour of the complainant dated 01.02.2010 vide document no. 547 of 2010 is incorrect and baseless. In fact, the complainant never visited the office of the Joint sub-Register, Chandur so as to claim that the document is registered. In fact, the alleged Register which is produced by the office of the Sub-Registrar does not contain any particulars as to which document the signatures therein pertain to. .
12. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that he did not make payment of Rs.20,000/- towards registration as demanded by the opposite parties, hence, the question of registering the plot does not arise. It is further contended that the respondents/opposite parties alleged that the complainant had not come for registration and hence they could not register the plot in his favour and that they have been registering the plots in the names of several persons who have approached them. Further, the register and other documents called from the office of Sub- Registrar, Chandur did not contain the signatures of the complainant and hence the registration itself is invalid and void ab initio. The plot was not in any developed layout as promised by the opposite parties vide agreement dated 28.02.2007, hence it amounts to deficiency in service. Though the sale deed alleged to have been executed , the same was not furnished to the appellant/complainant till date. The signatures and thumb impressions were not clear. Had really the document was executed in favour of the appellant/complainant; there was no need to knock the doors of the Forum.
13. Ex. B19 sale deed is the most crucial document executed on 01.02.2010 in the office of the sub-registrar office , Nalgonda district, in favour of the complainant. But he denied the execution of the same. On the petition filed by the appellant/complainant, the District Forum directed the Joint Sub-Registrar, Chandur, who, forwarded certified copies of sale deed dated 5.4.2010 and 01.02.2010 vide document no. 545 and 2010 and 547 of 2010 with original thumb impression Register volume -10 page No. 45. Perusal of the same, create doubt with regard to thumb impression and signatures of the complainant which supports the averment of the complainant. If the said document is a genuine one and it was registered in favour of the complainant, the opposite parties may come forward with the original registered sale deed to hand over the same to show their bonafides part even at this stage also but they did not do so. It appears there is also fallacy on the part of the opposite parties also. The case revolves with regard to signatures, thumb impressions and forged documents. Consumer Fora decides the cases in summary nature. Since complicated questions of fact and law are involved in this case and it requires recording of voluminous evidence, this Commission is of the view that the appellant/complainant has to approach appropriate Forum to get readdressal as rightly held by the District Forum.
14. After considering all the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the complainant and the opposite parties, this Commission is of the view that Consumer Fora are not appropriate institutions and the complainant has to seek his redress elsewhere. There are no merits in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the point framed at para No.8, supra, is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate Court/Tribunal if he is so advised. However, he can claim the benefit U/s.14 of Indian Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the C. P. Act. . There are no orders as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated :07.07.2017 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER