State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Narne Constructions Private Ltd vs Mr. Vijay Saghvi, S/O. Nandlal Sanghvi on 4 June, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HYDERABAD. FA.NO.410/2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.386/2008,ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD BETWEEN: 1.M/s. Narne Constructions Private Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & managing Director Sri Narne Ranga Rao No-86, Gunrock Enclave, Karkhana, Secunderabad-500 009. .. Appellants / OPP. Party AND Mr. Vijay Saghvi, S/o. Nandlal Sanghvi Aged 41 Years, Occ: Business, 204, Rayol Plaza, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. . Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant :M/s. Ch. R. Vasantha Kumar & M.Haribabu Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. Vamaraju Srikrishnudu QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI T. ASHOK KIUMAR, HONBBLE MEMBER MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral order: (As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar, Honble Member.) ***
1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party as against the orders dated 17.10.2008 in CC 386/2008 on the file of the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under:
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
Mrs.Madhu Kapoor and Wg. Cdr. S.K, Kapoor purchased plot Nos. 106 and 17 each admeasuring 280 sq. yards after paying Rs.3,03,000/- per plot vide receipt no.9614 and 9615 dt.24.01.1998 vide membership nos,90047and 90048 in the venture named rolling Meadows of Opposite party. On payment of transfer fees and development charges by the original allottees; the opposite party had transferred the membership in favour of the complainant, Mr.Vijay Sanghavi, 21.08.2005. An agreement of sale dt. 24.08.2005 was entered into with the complainant. The registration of the plot was kept pending as the final approval from HUDA was awaited. The opposite party agreed in the sale agreement that the scheduled property would be registered in favour of the purchaser within period of two years from the date of the agreement, subject to clearance of all dues by the purchaser including registration charges, failing which the entire amount has to be refunded to the purchaser. Except registration fees no amount is liable to be paid by the complainant. Instead of registering the plots the OP had demanded additional development charges to a tune of Rs.1, 96,000/- for each plot. A legal notice was issued on 07.12.2007 but no action was taken which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and thus prayed to direct the opposite party to register the plot nos.106 and 107 in favour of the complainant after duly collecting stamp duty and registration charges and pay damages of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.5, 000/- costs.
3. OP filed counter admitting that originally plots were allotted to Mr. S.K. Kapoor and Mrs. Madhu Kapoor and that had transferred their allotted plots to the complainant and that on agreement of sale was executed in favour of the complainant on 24.08.2005. The other aspects were opposed by the OP denying the allegations made against it and disputing the claim. The brief facts of the counter are as under:
The dispute is not a Consumer Dispute and the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction and that the complainant has committed default in paying the installments as agreed and in spite of the requests made by the OP through letters to pay additional development, registration, maintenance and ULC charges, the complainant did not pay the same enabling the OP to perform its obligation in registering the plot in favour of the complainant and therefore ultimately OP explained all the said aspects to the complainant to pay the dues payable by him but he failed to pay the same and hence allotment stands cancelled and that there no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both side filed evidence affidavits, Ex.A1 to A12 and Ex.B1 to B15 were marked on their behalf.
5. Having head both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum vide orders under appeal allowed the complaint directing Ops to execute registered sale deed in respect of plot no. 106 and 107 at Tolling meadows admeasuring 280 sq. yards described in the complaint after collecting prevailing registration charges within four weeks and also to pay costs of Rs.2, 000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the said orders, the opposite party preferred the above appeal on several grounds and mainly contending that the dispute between the parties proceedings is not a consumer dispute and that District Forum filed to appreciate the fact that the complainant failed to pay additional development and registration charges and revised registration charges etc and has become defaulter and that necessary approvals and sanctions were not accorded for want of payment of additional development charges to the Government organizations and that sanctions are pending and getting such approvals are not in the hands of the OP and that there is no evidence on record to show that the acts of OP amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.
7. Heard. Now the point for consideration is whether the orders of the District Forum are sustainable?
One of the important contentions raised by the OP is that the contents of the complaint disclose that the OP committed breach of contract and therefore the complainant ought to have approached a civil court for redressal, i.e. specific performance of contract and the Consumer Forum ought not to have entertained the complaint and thus attacked the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in entertaining the complaint. In several decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India and Honble National Commission held that the development of land for the purpose of selling it as plots and house sites after duly adding value buy way of providing infrastructure obtaining lay outs and other permissions form the local government etc. Constitutes by itself a kind of service and in that view of the matter when a person purchases a plot from the developer he not only purchased the plot but also the service associated with it. In a recent decision of Supreme Court in Fakir Chand Gulati Vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 2008(4) CPR 449 (SC) fortifies this view. It was held that since the complainant purchased a plot from the OP/ developer he comes within the meaning of a consumer. Therefore, the contention of the OP the point of jurisdiction and also that the complainant is not a consumer does not hold any water and as such it is decided against the OP.
8. There is no dispute that the Mrs. Madhu Kapoor and Wg. Cdr. S.K. Kapoor purchased plot Nos. 106 and 107 each admeasuring 280 sq. yards after paying Rs.3,03,000/- per plot fide receipt no. 9614 ad 9615 dt.
24.01.1998 vide membership nos, 90047 and 90048 in the venture named rolling Meadows of Opposite party. On payment of transfer fees and development charges by the original allot fees, the opposite party had transferred the membership in favour of the complainant Mr.Vijay Sanghvi on 21.08.2005. An agreement of sale dt. 24.08.2005 was entered into with the complainant and that the said plots were not registered in favour of the complainant. The contention of the complainant is that he paid the entire amount except registration charges and that deliberately the OP did not execute registered sale deeds in his favour in respect of the said plots and that it amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand the contention of the OP is that the plots were allotted on prior condition that they would be registered after final sanction of the layout and that since the is a hurdle in obtaining final sanction layout from the ULC authorities claiming the land in the layout is ceiling surplus and therefore to clear of ULC charges the OP requested the complainant and other allottees to deposit Rs.1,96,000/- for plot towards ULC charges and also for incidental charges which were not foreseen earlier and that the complainant did not pay any such amount and in such circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such order under appeal is liable to be set aside.
9. It is true that the complainant did not pay any such additional development charges, ULC and registration charges. Demand of the OP to pay ULC litigation charges is arbitrary because the complainant was not informed about such litigation when he booked the plots. A duty is cast upon the OP to obtain all necessary permissions and sanctions and then only to float the venture for sale of plots to its customers. But cannot squeeze money on such grounds or on some untenable grounds. Had the complainant was informed by the OP about the cases pending before the ULC certainly the complainant would not have ventured to purchase the plot in question on the ground that the OP had no clear title to the property and also for the reason that a case was pending before the Urban Ceiling Regulation. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that insisting for payment of additional development charges by the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. However, in the circumstances of the case, it would be just and reasonable to direct the OP to execute registered sale deed in respect of the plots bearing Nos. 106 and 107 in favor of the complainant by obtaining ULC clearance and other required permission for valid execution of sale deed at the cost of OP on payment of prevailing stamp duty and registration charges required for registration of such sale deeds by the complainant and the OP shall take all necessary steps to expedite the proceedings pending before ULC authorities and other Governmental organizations OR to refund Rs.3,03,000/- per plot paid by the complainant to the OP towards the plots in question with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the litigation before the District Forum and this Commission. Option is given to the complainant to elect either of the said reliefs.
10. In the result, the appeal is disposed off and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the OP to execute registered sale deed in respect of the plots bearing Nos. 106 and 107 in favor of the complainant by obtaining ULC clearance and other required permission for valid execution of sale deed at the costs of Op on payment of prevailing stamp duty and registration charges required for registration of such sale deeds by the complainant and the OP shall take all necessary steps to expedite the proceedings pending before ULC authorities and to the Governmental Organizations.
OR To refund Rs.3,03,000/- per plot paid by the complainant to the OP towards the plots in question with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/-towards costs of the litigation before the District Forum and this Commission. Option is given to the complainant to elect either or the said reliefs.
MEMBER MEMBER DATED : 04.06.2012.