State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Poladi Narayana Rao,S/O.Narsinga Rao, ... vs Popuri Nageshwar Rao, ... on 20 January, 2014
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD F.A.No.710/2012 against C.C.No.15/2010, Dist. Forum,Karimnagar. Between: Poladi Narayana Rao,S/o.Narsinga Rao, Age 55 years, Occ:Builder, R/o.Flat No.603, 5th Floor, Poladi Satya Residency , H.No.2-10-1032, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. Appellant/ Opp.party And Popuri Nageshwar Rao, S/o.Veeraiah, Age 47 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.304, Poladi Satya Residency, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. P.Raja Sripathi Rao Counsel for the respondent : M/s. M.Mohan Bujji. QUORUM:SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO,HONBLE MEMBER, SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN.
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) **** This appeal is directed against the order dt.31.07.2012 of the District Consumer Forum , Karimnagar Dist. made in C.C.No.15/2010.
The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent herein is the complainant in C.C.No.15/2010. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and claiming Rs.50,000/- i.e. 15,000/- towards excess payment made by him, Rs.15,000/- towards the payment made to Municipal Corporation for regularisation of the violation of terms of the sanctioned plan/building laws and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony.
The brief case of the complainant is that the opposite party is a developer/builder.
The complainant had purchased the flat bearing no.304 in second floor, plinth area measuring 703.73 sq.ft. and undivided share in 20 sq.yards and car parking for four wheelers , for a total consideration of Rs.8,85,000/- under registered sale deed bearing document no.1201/2007 dt.31.1.2007. Prior to the purchase of above said flat , the opposite party undertook not to violate the terms of the sanctioned plan/building by-laws. But the opposite party violated the terms of the sanctioned plan/building by-laws, due to which, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Municipal Corporation, Karimangar to regularise the same. The complainant before filing the complaint , got issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 21.12.2009. It is alleged that the opposite party got returned the legal notice with postal endorsement Addressee is not present. The complainant is the consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The acts of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party filed counter denying the material allegations made in the complaint . The opposite party contended that he has returned excess amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant through his supervisor. It is denied that the opposite party has not provided parking place for the complainant. It is denied that the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party. Under these circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to receive any compensation .
During the course of enquiry, the complainant besides his evidence affidavit, filed Exs.A1 to A15. As against that evidence, the opposite party filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and allowed the complaint, in part, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.27,000/- towards excess amount paid by the complainant and Rs.1000/- towards the costs of the complaint, to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred the above appeal, urging that the District Forum, Karimnagar had not appreciated the contentions raised by the appellant. The appellant has constructed the flat in accordance with the sanctioned plan and this fact could have been brought to the notice of the Municipal authorities at the time of measurement was taken in the presence of the appellant and there is no violation of the sanctioned plan. That the District Forum erred in awarding Rs.27,000/- towards the excess amount paid by the complainant and payment to Municipal Corporation towards the penal charges and Rs.1000/- towards the costs of the complaint. That the District Forum erred in awarding Rs.15,000/- towards the excess amount paid by the complainant . The District Forum did not appreciate the question of law relating to compensation and interest. The appellant finally prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased flat no.304 in second floor in Poladi Sathya Residency from the opposite party, for a total consideration of Rs.8,85,000/- and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.9 lakhs and that after receiving the entire sale consideration, the opposite party registered the sale deed dt. 31.1.2007 in the favour of the complainant. The opposite party has contended that he repaid the excess amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant through his supervisor. Except the oral testimony, the opposite party has not adduced any cogent evidence to prove that he repaid Rs.15,000/- the excess sale consideration paid by the complainant to the complainant.
Ex.A11 is the copy of the check list and acknowledgement issued by Karimnagar Municipal Corporation dt.25.06.2008. Ex.A12 is the photocopy of the DD drawn in favour of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar for Rs.6000/-. These two documents establish that the complainant paid Rs.6000/- to the Municipality towards the penalisation charges on 25.06.2008 and also Rs.6000/- on 14.7.2009. As per the Clauses 2 and 3 of Ex.B3, the photocopy of the affidavit of the complainant dt.31.3.2007, the opposite party has undertaken that the construction would be strictly as per the sanctioned plan/building by-laws and it would be his sole responsibility to obtain and submit Completion Certificate within three months from the date of the completion of construction. The facts and evidence on record clearly established that the opposite party has not fulfilled the undertaking given by him and he made the construction against the sanctioned plan/building by-laws. It was the responsibility of the opposite party to pay the penal charges for deviation. But the complainant had paid the penal charges and get the deviation regularised. The complainant cannot be found fault with, for payment of the penal charges, as he has no other go left for him. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly held that the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.12,000/- that was paid by the complainant to the Municipality towards the penal charges, from the opposite party. The opposite party is also liable to return the excess amount of Rs.15,000/- that was paid by the complainant to the opposite party towards the sale consideration. Thus the total amount, the complainant entitled to receive from the opposite party is Rs.27,000/-( Rs.12,000/- + Rs.15,000/) For all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any irregularities or illegalities in the impugned order of the District Forum to interfere with it. Hence the appeal fails.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the impugned order of the District Forum. The appellant/opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the respondent/complainant towards the costs of the appeal.
MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER Pm* Dt. 20.01.2014