State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd vs Bh.Bhaskara Rao on 15 November, 2011
A A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD FA 993/2008 against C.C.No.776/2007 on the file of the District Forum III, Hyderabad. Between: M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd No.1, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad 500 009. Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Col. Narne Ranga Rao, S/o late N.V. Naidu , Aged about 63 years, Gunrock Enclave, Karkhana, Secunderabad 500 009. Appellant/opposite party And Bh.Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Late Narayana Rao, Aged about 57 Years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Employee, R/o.LIG B 463, Dr. A.S.Rao Nagar, ECIL post, Hyderabad 500 062. Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.Ch.R.Vasantha Kumar & Mr.M.Haribabu Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.Y.V. Narasimhacharyulu Coram : Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member
And Sri T.Ashok Kumar Honble Member Tuesday, the Fifteenth Day of November, Two Thousand Eleven Oral Order : (as per Sri T. Ashok Kumar, Honble Member) *****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful opposite party against the orders dated 14.12.2007 in C.C. No. 776/2007 passed by the District Forum III, Hyderabad. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred here under:
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Plot No. 81 in Sector IV, Block Q an extent of 250 sq.yards. from the opposite party. He paid the Rs.3000/- initially, so also Rs.200/- per membership and membership no. 10616 was assigned to him. In total he paid Rs.27,000/- towards the cost of plot by December, 1996 further he paid development charges. Subsequently OP had issued a statement of account dated 2.1.1999 stating that the complainant paid all necessary charges including registration charges. In spite of paying the cost of the plot and other incidental charges, OP failed to register the plot in his favour and on the other hand vide letter dt. 12.4.2007 demanded the complainant to pay a further sum of Rs.57,500/- towards revised registration charges and that acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service as it failed to register the plot even after receiving complete payment by 2.12.1999 and hence the complaint to direct OP to register the plot in favour of the complainant and alternatively refund amount of Rs.57,000/- already together with interest @ 24 % p.a. compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The OP filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint and disputing the claim. However, it admitted that the complainant was allotted a plot no. 81 measuring 250 sq. yards in block QQ sector IV of East City. According to the OP, the sale consideration comprised of costs of the land, development and registration charges and that the allottees were entitled for registration only upon the payment of development charges so also costs of the plot and that since many of the allottees of the plots in the said venture did not commence payment of development charges the said development work hampered and that on account of escalation of development charges they were revised and estimated at Rs.250/-
per sq.yard and that the complainant did not pay the said amount of Rs.37,500/- and thus plot could not be registered in his name and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4 Both sides evidence affidavits. Ex. A1to A10 and Ex.B1 to B9 were marked on their behalf.
5. Having heard on both sides and considering the material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the OP.2 to register the plot originally allotted to the complainant in his favour without any further payment and alternatively ordered that in the event of an eventuality where the said plot cannot be registered OP has to pay RS. 5,50,000/-to the complainant towards prevailing market price of allotted plot, rs. 50,000/- towards prevailing market price of the allotted plot, Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- towards costs.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said finding, the unsuccessful OP preferred this appeal and contended that when the complainant committed default in payment of development charges in spite of repeated requests awarding damages for default is incorrect and that order under appeal is not sustainable either in law or on facts and thus prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order.
7. At the out-set we may state that it is an undisputed fact that the OP had sold Plot No. 81 in Sector IV, Block QQ an extent of 250 sq.yds in its venture. That apart Ex A1 discloses that complainant has joined as member in the said venture and that the said plot was allotted to him. Ex.A4 statement of account dated 2.12.1999 reveals that the complainant has paid Rs. 27,000/- towards cost of the plot, Rs.25,000/- towards development charges and a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards registration charges and thus we are convinced that the total amount required for the registration of the plot was paid by the complainant as on 2.12.1999 and in fact there is no dispute with regard to payment of the said amount by the complainant to the OP. In such circumstances, it was the obligation of the OP to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the said plot in favour of the complainant and deliver possession of the plot to him. But immediately it did not do so for the reasons best known to it. OP did not place any material on record. It did not inform the complainant soon after receipt of the amount as to the reasons for not executing the registered sale deed. Leisurely, that is after eight years OP designed vide Ex. A7 a plea that many of the allottees did not pay development charges and subsequently there was escalation of development charges and therefore revised the said charges at Rs. 250/- per yard which could not be appreciated in his favour and on the said ground it cannot subject the complainant to loss and avoid registration of the plot. It is much so when there is no convincing evidence as to escalation of development charges @ Rs. 250/- per sq yard. Had the OP felt that it is not feasible for it, to execute sale deed assigning reasons it should have addressed the complainant suitable within a couple months of Ex. A4 but protracted the matter for about 8 years and then focused the alleged escalation of development charges. There is no agreement between the complainant and the OP for payment of any such developmental charges and therefore no substance is found in the contention of OP to avoid registration on such pretext. It is not the contention of the OP that the said plot is not in existence or that it is sold to some others. Therefore, there is no necessity to direct him to pay Rs. 5,50,000/- as ordered by the District Forum alternatively. It is much more so when there is no believable evidence as to such market price. It is common knowledge that there is increase in the market price immovable property when compared to 1999 and thus the complainant is going to get the plot measuring 250 sq. yards now for a sum of Rs. 57,500/- and in such circumstances there is no need to award compensation much less Rs. 50,000/-directed by the District Forum and therefore the said alternative relief and compensation awarded is liable to be set aside. However costs of Rs. 2000/- awarded remain unchanged. Since the complainant already paid registration charges long back he need not pay any additional registration charges even though there is enhancement of such charges at present because on account of inaction on the part of OP the complainant cannot be further subjected to pay further stamp paper, registration charges, if any. There is no evidence that on account of certain disputes and for the reasons beyond its control OP could not register the plot in favour of the complainant and in such circumstances it had to be held that the OP is at fault in not registering the plot in favour of the complainant. Partly the reliefs granted by the District Forum are set aside.
8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and the OP is directed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant, i.e. Plot No.81 in Sector-IV, Block QQ an extent of 250 sq.yards at East City in Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh, costs awarded by the District forum in favour of the complainant remains unchanged and the parties shall bear their own costs of the appeal and the remaining part of the orders of the District Forum is set aside.
MEMBER MEMBER *KVR DATED: 15.11.2011