State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
B.Srinivass/O.B.Krishna ... vs Ch.Vallinaths/O.Late ... on 19 March, 2010
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD. F.A.No.1509/07 against C.C.No.173/2006, Dist. Forum-I Hyderabad . Between B.Srinivas, S/o.B.Krishna Murthy, Aged about 46 years, Occ:Business, R/o.1-9-34/4/B/B, Sector 19, Ramnagar, Hyderabad-20 . Appellant/ Opp.party And Ch.Vallinath, S/o.late CH.B.Suryachandra Rao, Aged about 41 years, Occ:Service, R/o.C/o.HLFPPT, 5th floor, Veenadhari Complex, King Koti Road, Hyderabad-29. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the appellant : M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates Counsel for the respondent : Mr. B.Ramesh CORAM ; THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER.
AND SRI K.SATYANAND , HONBLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order : (Per Smt. M.Shreesha Honble Member).
*** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.173/2006 on the file of District Forum-1, Hyderabad , the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant entered into an agreement to purchase flat no.401 in S.V.Gayatri Nilayam near Mahalaxmi Theatre, Kothapet, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad with the finance arranged by the opposite party from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and the flat was registered in favour of the complainant but the opposite party did not furnish the documents regarding the said flat to the complainant. Opposite party induced the complainant to sign on blank papers on the pretext of arranging finance from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and inspite of several demands , the opposite party failed to deliver vacant possession of the said flat to the complainant and has let out the said flat to some unknown persons and is collecting rents for himself. The complainant submits that the rental would be much more than the EMI and nothing needs to be paid towards EMIs from the complainants pocket. The complainant submits that LIC Housing Finance Ltd is pressurizing the complainant to repay the loan. Hence alleging deficiency in service , the complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to deliver vacant possession of Flat No.401 in S.V.Gayatri Nilayam situated at Kothapet, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad , to account for all the rents collected in respect of complainants flat , to hand over all documents pertaining to the said flat viz registered sale deed, municipal sanction plan , completion certificate etc., and to award costs, compensation and interest quantified at Rs.45,000/-
Though opposite party received notice, he remained absent and hence was set as exparte.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 and A2 allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to hand over the possession of the vacant flat no.401 in S.V.Gayatri Nilayam near Mahalaxmi Theatre, Kothapet, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant and also pay Rs.1000/-
towards costs and also to handover the original documents like registered sale deed, municipal sanction plan , building completion certificate to the complainant .
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
It is the complainants case that he entered into an agreement to purchase flat No.401 in S.V.Gayathri Nilayam and that the opposite party promised to arrange finance with LIC Housing Finance Limited and the flat was also registered in favour of the complainant but no document have been handed over to the complainant. It is the further case of the complainant that the opposite party induced him to sign on blank papers promising to arrange finance from LIC but did not deliver vacant possession of the said flat and instead let out the flat to some third parties and is enjoying the rent for himself and the LIC is pressurizing the complainant to repay the loan and the complainant submits that he does not have any source of income presently and seeks immediate delivery of the vacant possession of flat No.401and also hand over the documents pertaining to the said flat.
It is the case of the appellant/opposite party that they did not receive any notice before the District Forum and that he was not given an opportunity to contest the case on merits. The record of the District Forum shows that the appellant/opposite party has not claimed the notice and hence it was returned and he was deemed to be served. Now the appellant cannot state that no opportunity was given to him to contest the case. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the property was sold to the respondent/complainant on 19-4-2005 for Rs.3,05,500/- for 875 sq. ft. and the same was also registered. He denies that he ever promised to arrange finance with LIC Finance Limited. Ex.A1 is the sale deed executed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant and is dated 19-4-2005. This exhibit evidences that an amount of Rs.3,05,500/- was paid towards total sale consideration by the complainant to the opposite party for 875 sq. ft. and the annual rental value is Rs.8.000/-. LIC Housing Finance is not a party herein and keeping in view the subject matter of the case, the opposite party cannot be held liable for any loan taken by the respondent/complainant. Keeping in view that the sale deed has been executed, the act of the opposite party in not handing over possession of flat No.401 amounts to deficiency in service for which the District Forum rightly directed the opposite party to hand over possession of flat No.401 in S.V.Gayatri Nilayam situated at Kothapet, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and also further directed the opposite party to hand over original documents like registered sale deed, municipal sanction plan, Building completion certificate etc. The appellant has not contended anywhere that he does not have in his possession the documents prayed for by the complainant. The compensation of Rs.25,000/- granted by the District Forum is justified as the annual rental value in the schedule, is Rs.8,000/- which is un-controverted by the opposite partyand the sale deed was executed way back in 2005 and possession was not given till date i.e. almost five years since the date of execution of sale deed. Therefore, we do not see any grounds to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.19-3-2010