National Consumer Disputes Redressal
K J Deepak Reddy vs P. Vasantha & Ors on 23 April, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2014 (From the order dated 27.12.2013 in CC No. 26/2013 of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) K. J. Deepak Reddy s/o K. Ashok Reddy, r/o flat no. 101, Plot No. 4, Venkatadri Nivas, Nandamuri Nagar, Hydernagar, Hyderabad, A.P. 500085. ... Appellant/complainant versus 1. P. Vasantha w/o P. Venkata Ramana, Managing Partner, M/s. V.R. Realtors, Flat No. 402, Swapna Nivas, MIG II, 715, Opp. Lane to BSNL Office, Road No. 3, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, A.P. 500085. 2. Sri P. Venkata Ramana Managing Partner, M/s. V.R. Realtors, Flat No. 402, Swapna Nivas, MIG II, 715, Opp. Lane to BSNL Office, Road No. 3, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, A.P. 500085. 3. Sri K. Narayana Swamy r/o House No. 15-29-530, EWS Quarters, Road No. 3, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad A.P. 500085. Respondent(s)/OPs
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Appellant(s) Mr. K. Ashok Reddy, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd APRIL 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This first appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.12.2013, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 26/2013, K.J. Deepak Reddy versus P. Vasantha & Ors. vide which the said consumer complaint was partly allowed. The complainant has filed the present appeal requesting for passing the award as prayed for in the consumer complaint.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant K.G. Deepak Reddy filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that the OPs had published an advertisement in the newspapers for the sale of flats in the newly-constructed apartments at Hyderabad, following which he entered into an agreement for purchase of flat, measuring 1380 sq. ft. for a consideration of ` 37 lakh and that, he paid a sum of ` 3 lakh as initial advance for the purpose. The respondents/OPs 1 & 2 are wife and husband and the respondent 3 / OP 3 is their relative and business associate in their real estate business. The entire transaction of sale was divided into two parts one for agreement of sale for ` 21,02,000/- and the other was work order for the value of ` 15,98,000/-, making a total of ` 37 lakh as sale consideration. The complainant, alongwith his mother, obtained a housing loan of ` 30 lakh with interest @ 10.7% p.a. from LIC Housing Finance Corporation Limited. The OPs executed a regular sale-deed in favour of the complainant on 28.04.2012. The complainant incurred an expenditure of ` 2 lakh for execution of registered sale-deed and spent ` 3 lakh for the wood work and hence, he spent a total sum of ` 42 lakh for buying the said flat. It has been alleged by the complainant that he was given an impression by the OPs that the entire apartment building was regularised under the Building Penalisation Scheme (BPS), but he found later on, that there was neither BPS regularisation nor the building had been constructed as per the norms and regularisation of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC).
The complainants alleged that it was an unauthorised construction and a clear-cut case of cheating and unfair trade practice, amounting to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question with the following prayer:-
Therefore it is prayed that the Honble Commission may be pleased to pass an award and judgement in favour of the complainant and directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to:
a) Get the Occupancy Certificate from the GHMC and hand over the same to complainant or Pay the sum of `37,20,000/ (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh and Twenty Thousand only), the amount which is at stake and uncertain because of non-regularisation of the flat (apartment) under the BPS.
b) Pay a sum of ` 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh only) towards the compensation for mental agony caused by the deficiency of service of OPs.
c) Pay the costs of this complaint.
d) Pass such other and further orders as the Honble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this complaint.
3. In their reply before the State Commission, the OPs stated that they never published any advertisement in the newspapers. They stated that they never cheated the complainant. In fact, a regularised plan was obtained by the vendors of the OPs, from whom, they purchased the said property in June 2011, to develop the unfinished building.
The complainant had verified the facts before entering into an agreement with them. The State Commission after taking into account the evidence of the parties, passed the impugned order, the operative part of which reads as follows:-
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to refund an amount of Rs.37 lakhs received by them towards sale consideration of the subject flat to the complainant together with interest @ 10.70% P.A.. from the dates of respective payments till realization by the Ops together with a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- spent towards stamp duty, registration charges and other incidental charges by the complainant for registration of the sale deed and also a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards wood work got done by him in the subject flat and the complainant has to re-convey the title of the subject flat duly in favour of the Ops by executing necessary registered document by getting released the subject Flat from the LIC Housing Finance Limited, so also, costs of Rs.10,000/-. Ops have to deposit the amount to be paid to the complainant described supra in this Commission and on such deposit, the complainant has to execute conveyance deed as ordered in favour of the Ops and then withdraw the amount so deposited. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Alternatively, it is further ordered that if complainant wants to get the said construction regularized under relevant scheme there is no need to follow the above order by both of them and the Ops have to reimburse necessary charges legally to be paid by the complainant to the concerned and cooperate him by subscribing their signatures on necessary applications etc.
4. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the appellant / complainant stated that the relief as asked for in the complaint should have been provided to the appellant/complainant. He stressed that it was the duty of the OPs to obtain necessary occupancy certificate from the concerned authorities and hand over the same to the complainant. The complainant had been put to a lot of mental harassment on account of the fact that the necessary occupancy certificate was not obtained from the GHMC.
5. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. A perusal of the consumer complaint in question reveals that the complainant requested for a direction to the OPs to get occupancy certificate from the GHMC, OR, in the alternative to pay a sum of ` 37.20 lakh to him alongwith ` 10 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service / mental agony and the cost of the complaint. The State Commission vide impugned order, have allowed refund of an amount of ` 37 lakh received as sale consideration of the flat, alongwith interest @ 10.70 p.a. from the date of the payment till realisation. The State Commission have also allowed the sum of ` 1.5 lakh towards stamp duty, registration charges etc. and also ` 1.5 lakh for the wood work got done by the complainant. The State Commission have also stated that if the complainant wanted to get the said construction regularised, the OPs shall have to reimburse the necessary charges, legally to be paid by the complainant and also cooperate with him by submitting the necessary documents etc.
6. It is made out from the order passed by the State Commission that they have already allowed relief to the appellant / complainant by ordering refund of the sale consideration of ` 37 lakh, alongwith `_1.5 lakh as registration charges etc. and ` 1.5 lakh for the wood work got done by the complainant. The State Commission have also ordered payment of interest @10.7% p.a., the amount being charged by the financer. It is worthwhile to observe that the State Commission have also given an alternative vide impugned order that if the complainant wanted to get the matter regularised, he may do so and the OPs shall have to cooperate with him in submitting the necessary documents and reimbursing the legal expenditure incurred in getting the matter regularised. The order of the State Commission has been made by carrying out a rational analysis of the facts and circumstances on record, and the relief asked for in the complaint has been provided to a substantial and reasonable extent. We do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the said order and there is no need to make any modification in the said order. The appeal is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed at admission stage and the orders passed by the State Commission upheld.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER RS/