State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S R.M.Developers Associates vs G.Nagaraju S/O Late Satyanarayan Raju on 18 November, 2013
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.341 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.198 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM RANGA REDDY Between: M/s R.M.Developers Associates at Anjireddy Colony, Karmanghat R.R.District rep. by its Proprietor M.Rami Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy aged 57 years, R/o Plot No.1-9, Uday Gardens Kawadipally Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.Dist. (wrongly mentioned as Erragudem Village, Munugodu Mandal, Nalgonda District) Appellant/opposite party A N D G.Nagaraju S/o late Satyanarayan Raju aged about 59 years, Occ: Retired Employee R/o Plot No.213A, C Block, Sai Krupa Apt Madinaguda, R.R.District Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellant M/s K.V.Rajendraprasad Counsel for the Respondent M/s Madhusudhan Reddy QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE I/C PRESIDENT & S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The opposite party is the appellant. The respondent purchased a house site admeasuring 200 sq.yards situated at Kawadipally in Hayathnagar Mandal by paying an amount of `1,50,000/- and to the effect he entered into an agreement on 1.7.2005 for a sale consideration of `6 lakhs. As per the terms of the agreement the respondent has to pay the sale consideration in five instalments. The respondent has paid `3 lakhs and on 1.7.2007 when he approached the appellant to pay the third instalment amount of `1,00,000/- by the time the office of the appellant was shifted. Thereafter the respondent traced the address of the appellant and requested to register the sale deed by receiving balance amount of `3 lakhs and the appellant failed to do so. The respondent got issued notice dated 13.11.2007 to the appellant and the appellant by its letter dated 15.11.2007 informed the respondent that it was ready to refund the amount in two instalments on 30.12.2007 and 30.01.2008. The respondent also filed a complaint CC NO.459 of 2008 for the offence of cheating and the VII MM Court, Hayathnagar passed judgement acquitting the appellant stating that the dispute is of civil nature.
2. The appellant resisted the case contending that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the transaction is purely civil in nature. The complaint is barred by limitation. The respondent committed default in payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.3 lakh and forfeited his right to claim any relief. The letter stated to have been executed by the appellant was executed between Smt G.Bhavani and the appellant. Hence, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The respondent filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the appellant, its proprietor filed his affidavit. No documents have been filed on behalf of the appellant.
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellant to refund `3 lakhs with interest @ 12% per annum from 30.01.2008 till payment.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party filed the appeal contending that the dispute cannot be construed as service between the parties as the entire transaction itself is only the agreement of sale without any assurance or undertaking for any development of infrastructure/amenities/layout approvals and that the District Forum failed to appreciate the ratio laid down in Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Shakti Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., and UT Chandigarh Administration & Another Vs Amerjeet Singh and another. It is contended that the criminal case filed the respondent ended in acquittal on merits and that in CC NO.459 of 2008 the respondent admitted that he was unable to pay the balance sale consideration.
6. The point for consideration whether there was any infirmity in the order of the District Forum?
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no element of service rendered by the appellant and as such this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. A perusal of the record shows that in the agreement, the following address of the opposite party is noted:
M/s R.M.Developers Associates, rep. by its Proprietor Sri M.Ram Reddy S/o M.Malla Reddy, aged about 48 years, Occ:Business R/o Plot No.I-9, Uday Garden, Kavadipally, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.Dist.
8. Thus it is evident that the appellant has been carrying on development activity and launching ventures and as such the appellant cannot contend that the transaction with the respondent does not involve any element of development activity.
9. The agreement of sale entered between the parties would show that the respondent agreed to purchase house site admeasuring 200 sq.yards situated at Kawadipalli Hayathnagar Mandal R.R.District for consideration of `6 lakhs and an earnest amount of `1,50,000/-
was paid by the respondent to the appellant.
It was agreed by the parties, as seen from the contents of the agreement that the respondent would pay the sale consideration in five instalments. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and he has submitted that the office of the appellant was found shifted to some other place when he intended to pay 3rd instalment of `1,00,000/- on 1.7.2007.
10. It is not disputed that the appellant firm has shifted its office without giving intimation to the respondent and other subscribers of the scheme. It is also borne from the record that the respondent got issued notice on 13.11.2007 requesting the appellant firm to receive balance sale consideration of `3 lakhs and execute sale deed in respect of the plot. The appellant firm expressed its readiness to refund the amount of Rs.3 lakhs in two instalments on 30.12.2007 and 30.1.2008 and to the effect executed document, Ex.A8. The District Forum observed that there is no specific denial execution of Ex.A8. The appellant would contend that Ex.A8 was executed in favour of G.Bhavani.
11. Apart from the undertaking Ex.A8, the appellant firm issued receipts acknowledgement receipt of a sum of `3 lakhs from the respondent. The appellant firm has not proceeded to perform its part of contract and it has shifted its office without informing the respondent as a result of which the respondent could not pay the balance sale consideration and when the respondent approached the appellant firm after finding its new place of business, the appellant firm has not come forward to receive balance sale consideration and execute sale deed in favour of the respondent which constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the appellant firm.
12. Receipt of the amount of `3 lakhs by the appellant and the appellant refusing to receive the balance sale consideration as also execute sale deed in favour of the respondent has been correctly concluded by the District forum which awarded refund of the amount with interest thereon. This Commission does not find any infirmity in the findings returned by the District Forum as to the appellant firm not keeping its promise and thereby rendered deficient service to the respondent. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER Dt.18.11.2013 KMK*