State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd., ... vs M/S. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd ... on 16 October, 2008
A
BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1711/2007
against C.C. 45/2007, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad
Between:
M/s.
Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep.
by its Chairman &
Managing
Director
Col.
N. Ranga Rao
No.
1 Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500
009 *** Appellant/
Opposite
Party
And
Smt.
Vijaya Kumari
W/o.
T. Vinod Kumar
Age:
53 years, Govt. Servant
R/o.
A-22, V House
Indian
Airlines Employees Colony
Police
Lines,
Secunderabad-500
003. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel
for the Appellant: Mr.
V. Henry
Counsel
for the Resps: P.I.P.
QUORUM:
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THIS THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND EIGHT Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***** This is an appeal preferred by opposite party against the order of the Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad in directing payment of Rs. 50,000/- towards damages.
The case of the complainant in brief is that she enrolled as a member in the venture floated by the appellant in the housing lay out at Bibinagar. She was allotted plot No. 90 in sector EX, Block D admeasuring 250 sq.yds in East City extension. As per the terms of the scheme total cost of the plot is Rs. 40,000/- and initial amount of Rs. 5,000/- is to be paid. The remaining amount is to be paid in 35 montly instalments at Rs. 1,000/- per month.
Accordingly, she paid Rs. 5,000/-
on 10.1.1998 and all the instalments up to December, 2000. She received intimation in April, 2001 asking her to pay Rs. 43,750/- towards development charges in 29 instalments at Rs. 1,500/- per month. She paid the entire development charges by 19.2.2003. Despite payment of entire cost of site as well as development charges, appellant failed to deliver possession of the plot or register the plot in her favour. In fact, the appellant had taken necessary particulars required for registration such as photographs, thumb impressions, special power of attorney. It still failed to register the plot. Later, it sent a letter Dt. 28.10.2006 stating that the process of registration at East City has not begun and it had offered an alternative plot No. 53 in Sector-V. Since she was unwilling for the alternative plot she requested for cancellation of booking and refund of the amount along with interest and compensation. A reminder was also sent on 24.11.2006. Thereupon, the appellant had refunded Rs. 81,250/- as against total sum of Rs. 83,750/- alleging that a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was deducted towards outstanding dues. In fact, non-payment of interest for the amount paid by her and deducting Rs. 2,500/- on false grounds amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, she prayed for compensation at the present market value amounting to Rs. 3,75,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., on the amount paid by her and refund of Rs. 2,500/- deducted illegally and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
The appellant though engaged an advocate did not file its counter nor contested the matter.
The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and Exs. A1 to A13.
The Dist. Forum after considering the above evidence opined that non-registering the plot having taken the entire sale consideration amounts to deficiency in service. Though the appellant had refunded the amount, it did not pay compensation and interest, therefore awarded only a compensation of Rs.
50,000/- besides costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred this appal contending that the Dist.
Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. In fact on 12.3.2003 it suggested four alternative plots. She preferred to refund of the amount.. On 1.9.2006 she again asked for registration of the same plot. As there was delay in execution of sale deeds, it has offered an alternative plot but the complainant did not evince any interest. On the other hand requested for refund of the amount, and the same was paid. As it was offering an alternative plot, it was not liable to pay either interest or compensation. In fact, its advocate inadvertently noted the date of hearing wrongly, therefore, it could not file counter and contest the matter. On the suggestion of Dist. Forum there was discussion for amicable settlement between the complainant, her husband and the law officer of appellant Ms. Satya. However, it could not be fructified. The compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Dist. Forum was on the higher side instead interest @ 9% could have been ordered from the date of refund viz., 24.11.2006.
Most of the facts are not in dispute. When the appellant has floated a housing lay out the complainant was admitted in the said venture. She was allotted plot No. 90 admeasuring 250 sq.yds in East City extension. It is also not in dispute that as per the terms of the agreement Ex. A1 she paid the entire sale consideration. She also paid development charges to a tune of Rs. 43,750/- as desired by the appellant. In fact, the appellant had taken her photographs and thumb impressions etc. for registering the plot in her favour. This fact was not disputed by the appellant even in the grounds of appeal. The appellant now complains that no chance was given and as the advocate had mistakenly noted a wrong date of hearing it could not file its counter or contested the matter. The affidavit of the concerned advocate was not filed. Whatever may be the reason, the sale deed was not executed by the appellant in favour of the complainant. On the other hand, it had offered four alternative plots which was not agreeable to the complainant, and therefore she requested for refund of the amount. Though the appellant had received the entire amount as stated above did not execute the registered sale deed nor did even refund the amount. The very complainant herself by letter Dt. 16.9.2006 Ex. A8 asked for registration of said plot. The appellant now alleges that there were some disputes with regard to the said plot, they could not sell it to the complainant. However, in the grounds of appeal at ground No. 5 there was a mention As there was delay in execution of registered sale deeds in the extension block, by a letter Dt. 28.10.2006 the O.P. offered another plot i.e., Plot No. 53, Block-D, Sector-V and offered immediate registration of the plot. But the complainant by her letter Dt. 7.11.2006 sought for refund of her amount with interest.
Even in the grounds of appeal the appellant could not give any reasons as to why it could not execute registered sale deed. It is common knowledge that there was huge escalation of prices in regard to these house plots at Hyderabad. The appellant could have filed the documents to show that it did not alienate the said plot to third party. It could not file any documentary evidence to show that there was dispute in regard to the said land. Therefore, the appellant was not justified in refusing to register the plot.
The appellant had the advantage of entire sale consideration and development charges by 9.2.2003. It did neither refund the amount nor executed the sale deed. Only when the complainant insisted for the said amount, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 81,250/- as against Rs. 83,750/-. It deducted an amount of Rs. 2,500/- on the ground of outstanding dues. This is undoubtedly unethical. It could not show as to why it had deducted Rs. 2,500/- when the complainant was regular in payment of amounts and the appellant was at fault in not registering the plot. Even when it had refunded the amount, it had deducted Rs. 2,500/-. This shows that the appellant was bent upon harassing and causing loss to the complainant. Admittedly, this amount was paid only when a reminder was sent on 24.11.2006. From 2003 to 2006 the appellant had the advantage of the entire money paid by the complainant. The complainant was at loss for not getting the plot though the entire amount was paid. Naturally, she had to be compensated for the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. In view of the enormous increase of the prices from 2003 till payment of amount in the year 2006, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards compensation cannot be said to be high. The Dist. Forum did not compensate her at the present market value at Rs. 1,500/- per square yard, obviously, on the ground that no documentary evidence was filed.
In the light of the fact that the appellant had the advantage of amount all through and it had advantage of escalation of prices, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded was on the higher side, more so, when it did not contest the matter before the Dist. Forum. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. However, not costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER Dt.
16.10.2008.