State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. R.K. Township Promotors P Ltd., vs Sri V.Sai Krishna Vishnu on 19 June, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/669/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/01/2014 in Case No. cc/320/2013 of District Hyderabad-III) 1. M/s. R.K. TownShip Promotors P Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director Sri M.M.Kondaiah, O/o.8-3-319/11, 3rd Floor, Doyen Chambers, Behind Sarathi Studio, Ameerpet Hyderabad Telangana ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri V.Sai Krishna Vishnu S/o. Sri, V.V.Krishna Rao, Aged about 33 years, Occupation Private Employee, R/o. H.No.10-148/28, Sainagar, Balanagar Rangareddy Telangana ...........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 : 19 Jun 2017 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA ` AT HYDERABAD FA 669 OF 2014 Against CC 320 OF 2013, DISTRICT FORUM III, HYDERABAD Between : M/s. R. K. Township Promoters (P ) Ltd Represented by its Managing Director Sri M.M. Kondaiah, O/o 8-3-319/11, 3rd floor, Doyen Chamber, Behind Sarathi Studio, Ameerpet, Hyderabad ... Appellant/opposite party And Sri V. Sai Krishna Vishnu, S/o Sri V.V. Krishna Rao, Aged about 33 years, Occ : Private employee, R/o H.No. 10-148/28, Sainagar Balanagar, R.R. District ... Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Vamaraju Srikrishnudu Counsel for the Respondent : Sri V. Srinivas Coram : Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao .. Member
Monday, the Nineteenth Day of June Two Thousand Seventeen Oral order : ( Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) ***** This is an appeal filed Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/opposite party aggrieved by the orders dated 15.01.2014 made in CC 320 of 2013 passed by the District Forum III, Hyderabad.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the Forum below.
The case of the appellant/complainant, in brief, is that the opposite party issued wide publicity that they would develop a venture under the name and style of "R. K. Diamond City" at Bangalore High way, Kothur X road, HEL Nagar, Railway Station, Shamshabad. The complainant paid Rs.500/- towards admission fee. The complainant intends to purchase a plot bearing No. 154 and paid Rs.4,50,000/- towards cost of the plot including development charges. The Appellant/opposite party ailed to produce HMDA final approval and approval from the DTCP. There are no developments on the site. Despite many requests, the appellant/opposite party postponed the registration of the plot on one pretext or the other and demanded further amount. He approached their Managing Director and the Managers of various branches located in A. P. He approached the A.P.State Legal Services Authority, which, forwarded the same to the District Legal Services Authority, R.R. District for settlement. But the opposite party did not appear before the legal services authority. Hence he got issued legal notice dated 21.04.2013 demanding refund of the amount but the opposite party did not give any reply. The acts of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.4,50,000/- with interest @ 18% pa from the respective dates of payment till the ate of realization, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.30,000/-.
Despite ample opportunities, the opposite party did not contest the case.
During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. A1 to A9 and the complainant filed written arguments and also adduced oralarguments The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest @ 9% pa from 06.03.2006 till realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/ opposite party preferred this appeal on the ground that (i) the District Forum ought to have seen that the developments were completed and the respondent/complainant is not coming forward for registration of the plot by paying the registration charges and that they are ready and willing to register the Plot , (ii) the District Forum failed to see that the complaint is barred by limitation, (iii) the District Forum ought to have seen that the complainant is no a consumer, (iv) the District Forum should have seen that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it can be decided only in a Civil Court as so many questions of facts are involve.
08. Counsel for the appellant filed written arguments reiterating their respective contents as stated in their pleadings and evidence.
09. The point that arises for consideration is whethr the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner ? to what relief ?
10. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant booked a plot bearing No. 154 in the venture floated by the appellant/opposite party, by name, R.K. Diamond City, and paid Rs.500/- towards admission fee and also paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards full and final cost of the said plot. There is also no dispute that the appellant did not register the said plot and deliver possession.
11. (i) The appellant/opposite party contended that the District Forum ought to have seen that the developments were completed and the respondent/complainant is not coming forward for registration of the plot by paying the registration charges and that they are ready and willing to register the plot.
(ii) The respondent/complainant contended that despite payment of entire sale consideration amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and many requests to register the plot after completion of the developments and after furnishing all the documents, the appellant/ opposite party did not register the plot in his name. They did not appear before the District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District. They did not choose to give any reply even to the legal notice issued by him. There are no developments on the site The appellant/opposite party did not choose to contest the matter before the District Forum despite ample opportunities.
(iii) Except the averment, the appellant/opposite party did not produce any evidence to show that the site was developed with all amenities as per agreement. There is no evidence on record adduced by the appellant/opposite party to show that they have intimated to the respondent/complainant stating that they are ready to register the plot on payment of registration charges. The appellant/opposite party did not contest before the District Forum or at least they did not file their averments promising to register the plot. At the appellate stage only they came forward with these avrments.
(iv) In view of the above, there is no force in this contentin. 12. ( I ) The further contention of the appellant/opposite party is that the District Forum failed to see that the complaint is barred by limitation. (ii) The appellant/opposite party did not explain as to how the complaint is barred by limitation.
(iii) As per the contents of the complaint, the cause of action has arisen on 05.03.2006 and 06.03.2006 and the legal notice sent on 29.04.2013 and the complaint is filed on 07.05.2013. Since the appellant/opposite party did not register the plot in the name of the respondent/complainant and handed over possession of the same, the cause of action continues. Hence it cannot be said that the complaint is barred by limitation.
13 (i) The further contention is that the respondent/complainant is not a consumer.
(ii) The respondent/complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards sale consideration of the plot to the appellant/opposite party. Hence as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C P Act the respondent/complainant is consumer.
14 (i) The further contention is that the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is Civil Court.
(ii) There are no complicated questions of fact and law involved in this case. The respondent/complainant paid the consideration to the appellant/opposite party and they have to register the plot in his name. But the appellant/opposite party did not register the plot despite receipt of amount and did not intimate to the respondent/complainant to pay the registration charges which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party. Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
15 After considering all the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/opposite party and the respondent/complainant, this Commission is of the view that there are no irregularities or infirmities in the order passed by the District Forum. This Commission answered Point No. 1, accordingly in favour of the respondent/complainant and against the appellant/ opposite party.
16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order. There shall be no Order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER DATED : 19.06.2017. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER