National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sri Subhakara Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs D. Rambabu, Son Of Venkateswara Rao on 12 December, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.2477 OF 2007 (From the order dated 11.04.2007 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in Appeal no.431 of 2004) Sri Subhakara Estates Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Partner P. Nagaraju, son of P. Rasmalingachari Petitioner 41-42 Gayatri Towers Old Bus Stand, Governorpet Vijayawada versus D. Rambabu, son of Venkateswara Rao Resident of Radhanagar, Payakapuram Respondent Vijayawada BEFORE: HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr. P. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Advocate Pronounced on 12th December, 2011 O R D E R ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition challenges the order dated 11.04.2007 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, the State Commission) in F.A. no. 431 of 2004. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner who was the opposite party (OP) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, II, Krishna, Vijayawada (in short, the District Forum) in complaint case no. 325 of 2003. 2. The respondent was the complainant before the District Forum with the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in that the latter failed to execute the sale deed in respect of four plots of lands despite his making full payment of Rs.1,60,000/-. On the other hand, the petitioner/OP contended that the Managing partner of the petitioner firm had executed the registration of the sale deeds of plots of 200 sq. yds in favour of the complainant and hence there was no deficiency in service on his part. After consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record by the parties, the District Forum found that the petitioner/OP 1 had failed to establish acquisition of land which was to be divided into plots and allotted to various applicants and hence it was liable to refund the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- that the firm had received from the complainant as he had produced various receipts to establish the payments. Accordingly, the District Forum directed the OP to pay the sum of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 25.05.2003 and cost of Rs.1000/-. In appeal filed by the OP the State Commission passed the impugned order, as noticed above. 3. We have heard Mr. P. Vijay Kumar and Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent respectively and carefully perused the documents already on record. 4. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Learned counsel for the petitioner firm states that in terms of clause 16 of the sale agreement dated 01.05.2003 executed by the petitioner with the respondent/complainant, the dispute should have been raised before an arbitrator. Secondly, two plots of land were registered in favour of the respondent/complainant by sale deeds dated 14.10.2003. Thus, there was no question of registering any more sale deeds in favour of the respondent/complainant in accordance with the said sale agreement. He has specifically claimed that the land referred to in clause 1 of the terms and conditions of the sale agreement was the same as that conveyed under the registered sale deed of 15.10.2003, because the name of the village, i.e., Chilukuru is the same. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has stated that both the Fora below had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove the purchase of any land in accordance with the agreement for sale dated 01.05.2003. Moreover, the sale deed dated 15.10.2003 executed by P. Nagaraju was in respect of plot of land of 200 sq. yds. purchased by the said Nagaraju in his personal capacity for which he received the consideration of Rs.17,000/-. This was paid in cash by the respondent/complainant and acknowledged as such. This plot of land had nothing to do with the four plots of land for which the respondent/complainant had paid Rs. 1,60,000/- to M/s Subhakara Estates Pvt. Ltd. In fact, as observed by the District Forum in its order, the petitioner firm, though represented by its Managing Partner Nagaraju, had failed to show any documents confirming the purchase of land or for sub-division into plots 100/200 sq. yds. and further sale to various applicants, including the respondent/complainant. 6. On perusal of the documents relied upon by the parties, we are inclined to agree that the District Forum had correctly appraised the evidence and concluded that no land was acquired by the petitioner firm which could have been divided/developed into housing plots of 100/200 sq. yds. and what the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm (P. Nagaraju) did was to sell the plots of 200 sq. yds. in the Chilukuru village for which he received cost of Rs.17,000/- in his personal capacity. 7. In view of the foregoing, there is no reason for us to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Fora below. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to cost. Sd/- .
[Anupam Dasgupta] Sd/-
...
[Suresh Chandra] Satish