State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramky Pearl Welfare Association vs 1. M/S. Godavari Developers on 10 August, 2022
DISPUTES
CONSUMER
TELANGANA STATE
BEFORE THER E D R E S S A L C O M M I s S I O N : H Y D E R A B A D
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
C.C.48/2015
Between:
Welfare Association,
Ramky Pearl Owners A.P. Societies
A regd. Society under the
Registration Act, 2001,
vide Regd. No.893/2012,
H.No.2-23-11, P.No.6,
Having its office at
Club House, Ramky Pearl,
Sathavahana Nagar Colony,
500 072,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad
-
cum Authorised Signatory,
Rep. by its Treasurer
Mr.V.Suresh Babu,
S/o.Pallaiah Chowdary,
Aged 51 years,
R/o.Villa No.99 of Ramky Pearl, ..Complainant
District-500 072.
Kukatpally, R.R.
And
1.M/s.Godavari Developers,
office at
A partnership firm, having its
HMT Shathavahana Nagar, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad 500 072,
Partners Nos.2 to 5.
Rep. by its Managing
2. Mr.Ch.Ashok Reddy,
S/o.Ch.Yella Reddy,
Godavari Developers,
Managing Partner, M/s.
its office at
A partnership Firm, having
HMT Shathavahana Nagar, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad 500 072,
3. Mr.Ch.Shyam Sunder Reddy,
S/o.Ch.Yella Reddy,
Godavari Developers,
Managing Partner, M/s.
office at
A partnership Firm, having its
HMT Sathavahana Nagar, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad - 500 072,
4. Mr.Arekapudi Gandhi,
S/o.Chitti Ranjan Das,
Godavari Developers,
Managing Partner, M/s.
its office at
A partnership Firm , having
HMT Shathavahana Nagar, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad
-
500 072.
5. Mr.Dhanpal Veerender,
S/o.Kishan, Godavari Developers,
Managing Partner, M/s.
A partnership Firm , having its office at
HMT Shathavahana Nagar, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad 500 072.
-
6.
M/s.Ramky Estates & FarmsLtd.,
(Formerly known as M/s.Ramky Estates &
Farms Pvt. Ltd.) A
the Company incorporated under
Companies Act, 1956,
having its Regd. Office at Ramky House,
Gulmohar Avenue, Rajbhavan
Road,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82,
Rep. by its Managing Director.
Opposite parties
Counsel for the
Complainant :M/s.S.Leo Raj
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Mr.T.Kiran Kumar-Ops. 1 to 5.
1/s.K. Vishweswar Reddy-
OP.6.
CORAM: Hon'ble Sri V.V.Seshubabu, Member
(J), And Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member (NJ). WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO Order (Per Hon'ble Sri V.V.Seshubabu, Member (J) ****
01). The complaint is filed u/s. 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for directions to the parties as under:
opposite i. to furnish the copies of the link documents for the land to an extent of 17 acres 18 guntas in Sy.Nos. 143 to 147 and 149 to 156 of Kukatpally village;
11. to provide all the amenities/facilities mentioned in the brochure issued by the opposite party no.6 within the land of Ac.17.18 guntas and provide the compound wall around the approved layout, ii. to show the 10% green area (7042 sq.mts.) as per the approved plan dt.5.1.2011 within the land of Ac.17.18 guntas.
iv. to provide black top roads with paved walk-ways with quality material and Con provide the West Side Park as also to indicated in the Layout Plan;
no.6 to
V. to direct the opposite party
transfer the corpus fund of all the villas with interest to the account of complainant association; and vi. to pay costs of the complaint.
brief averments of the complaint are that the
02). The
opposite parties l to 5 are the owners of the land covered by
Survey Nos. 143 to 147 & 149 to 156 of Kukatpally Village, to 5 Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District. Opposite parties 1 entered into an Agreement for Development cum General Power of Attorney dt.29.11.2007 and also obtained a registered Sale Deed dt.26.4.2012 vide doc.no.2877/2012, that in pursuance of Development Agreement cum GPA, opposite party no.6 who is the developer has to construct the villas in Ac.17.18 guntas which is evident from the said document; that the schedule to the Agreement for Development cum GPA shows the extent of land given for development is Ac.12.00 in the Survey nos. 143 to 147 and 149 to 156 situated at Kukatpally Village with specific boundaries; that as per Clause 23 of Agreement for Development cum GPA, villas have to be completed in 30 months from the date of grant of permit by GHMC i.e on or before 5.1.2014; that opposite party no.6 in pursuance of the Agreement for Development cum GPA issued a brochure stating that the land to an extent of Ac.17.18 guntas and the lay out was approved by the GHMC to the said extent; that impressed by the brochure the members of the complainant association purchased the villas from the opposite parties; that the complainant association is entitled for all the documents including link documents, but the opposite parties have not provided the same and it amounts to unfair trade practice; that not constructing the villas and develop the property as per the brochure shows that, the opposite party no.6 has committed deficiency in service; that one Mr.Shaik Kareem Mohiddin - owner of Villa no.11-A approached the District Consumer Forum, R.R.District in C.C.No. 149/2014; that opposite party no.6 is bound to pay Rs.2,50,000/- per villa towards corpus fund which was collected from villa owners and 4 though the complainant association has been requesting opposite party no.6 to provide the facilities and amenities as mentioned in the relief portion of the complaint and inspite of demands and legal notice dt.21.11.2014, they failed to provide the same and issued a reply legal notice with false averments, that the complaint is notionally valued at Rs. 95 lakhs Over which Rs.4000/- is paid as court fees as mandated under Rule 9A of the Consumer Protection Rules,1987; hence the complaint.
03) The brief averments of the written version of opposite party no.6, which was adopted by opposite parties 1 to 5 are that the complaint is not maintainable for reason that the person who signed the complaint as the Treasurer of the Association is not an authorised signatory, in the absence of the President, General Secretary and Vice President not contributed their signatures for the authorization letter given in favour of the Treasurer; that the complainant shall prove all contents of the complaint except those that are admitted by opposite party no.6; that opposite party no.6 has not indulged in any uníair trade practice and on the other hand, it is a leading real estate company having good reputation and goodwill in real estate market; that the complaint is filed with dis-honest intention for causing loss to the opposite party; that all the amenities are not at all pending and all of them are provided by opposite party no.6 and even the corpus fund was reimbursed to the complainant association; that opposite party no.6 is always requesting the complainant to appoint an authorised person to collect the link documents, but they have not done so far; that the total land that was developed after the obtaining lay out approval and permissions is Ac.17.18 guntas, but the Development Agreement cum GPA dt.29.11.2007 is only for 12 acres; that the remaining extent of Ac.5. 18 guntas was retained by opposite parties 1 to 5 who are the land owners and there was an understanding between the land owners and opposite party no.6, that the lay out approval shall be obtained for Ac.17.18 guntas and infrastructure shall be developed by the opposite party no.6 for remaining land of Ac.5.18 guntas retained by the owners; that as per the Agreement between the land owners and opposite party no.6, the land owners shall reimburse the cost of opposite party no.6 and the said the infrastructure to infrastructures include roads, streetlights, gardening, underground drainage etc.; that brochure was issued by not for legal purpose opposite party no.6 with a rider that it is to and it is only indicative and the developer reserves right alter plans, elevation and specifications; that numerous meetings were conducted by the opposite party no.6 with the purchasers of the villas who are the members of the complainant society and corpus fund to the tune of Rs.94,10,831/-
was given to the
of total villas, 62 came to the
complainant society; that out
share of opposite party no.6 and he sold them to the purchasers and out of who are the members of the complainant association them 41 only paid the corpus fund and remaining 21 not paid and a demand was made to that effect; that opposite party no.b of villas as is compelled to pay electricity bills of the purchasers two occasions i.e. the complainant association failed to do so on on 30.12.2013 and 1.1.2014 totalling to Rs.6,67,324/- and the same was even informed to the complainant association before paying the bills; that the society can directly take complainant the corpus fund from 21 purchasers as they are members of were offered to provide Association; that few of the customers intercom telephone facility but complainant association refused for the same; that opposite party no.6 has to deposit a sum of Rs.6 lakhs with the owners for the cost of the same and the was agreed in the meeting of the Owners said proposal Association dt.28.6.2014; that the compound wall was constructed for approved lay out as contemplated in the Sale Deed; that the Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the complaint as it was notionally valued without giving details of the amounts sought to be recovered from the opposite to dismiss the complaint party no.6. With these pleas requested with costs.
04). Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the following points are framed:
i. whether the State Commission is having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the complaint? ii. Whether the opposite party no.6 has committed unlair trade practice in the construction ol villas and there is deficiency in service? ii. whether the complainant association is entitled for the link documents for entire Ac.17.18 guntas even though the Development Agreement cum GPA restricted the extent of land to 12 acres?
1V. whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?; If so for how much amount they are entitled for to be recovered opposite party no.6?
05). To prove the case, the Authorised Signatory -Mr.V.Suresh Babu, Treasurer of complainant association is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17.
Opposite party no.3- Mr.CH.Shyam Sunder Reddy filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.BI to B4 Heard the arguments of both sides.
Written arguments filed for opposite party no.6 and the same is adopted by opposite parties l to 5.
06). As the
opposite parties have
questioned the very
pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission to decide the complaint, it is taken at first.
For the sake of convenience, parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the complaint.
In page 8-para 12 of the complaint, the complainant valued the complaint notionally for Rs.95 lakhs, over which Court fee of Rs.4,000/- was paid under Rule 9A of the Consumer Protection Rules,1987. It is important to note that Consumer Protection Act is a self suflicient and covers all aspects regarding the Court fee. Nowhere in Consumer Protection Act,1986 and Consumer Protection Rules,1987 a provision is made or a Section is incorporated to assess the value of the complaint with a notional value. In the absence of such provision or Section no complaint shall be notionally valued.
In Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, the complaint shall be valued basing on the value of goods and services' and at that time the jurisdiction of the State Commission is from Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.1 Crore. If the value of goods and services is beyond Rs.1 crore, the jurisdiction lies with National Commission. In 5th relief out of 7 mentioned in page 9 of the complaint, it is submitted that the Commission shall direct the opposite party no.6 to transfer the corpus fund of all the villas with interest to the account of the complainant association. Nowhere in the complaint it is mentioned what was the said amount to be recovered from opposite party no.6. However, it is mentioned in page 6 para 8(e) the corpus fund was collected @Rs.2.5 lakhs from the villa purchasers at the time of registration which has not been handed to the No over complainant association.
document what so ever is filed by the complainant to show the names of the villa owners or atleast how many of villa owners paid the corpus fund and how much it was. Ex.A2 is authorization for the Treasurer, for which a list of signatories of the villas was appended with. A close look at the said document goes to show that total number of villas are 157. It is not at all mentioned anywhere in the complaint, whether all the villas sold away either by opposite parties 1 to 5 or opposite party no.6 according to their shares and it is also not mentioned whether any of the villas remained un-sold by the date of the complaint? It is not at all clarified whether the complainant association is confined only to the villas which fell to the share of opposite party no.6 or it relates to all villas fell to the share of opposite parties 1 to 6 respectively. In the absence of such clarification, one has to presume that the complainant association is representing the interest of all 157 villa owners because it is demanding for the documents relating to entire Ac.17.18 guntas of the land covered by Survey nos. 143 to 147 and 149 to 156, Kukatpally village.
07). If the entire corpus fund paid by the owners of 157 villas @Rs.2.50,000/- per villa, the total comes to Rs.3,92,50,000/-, Undoubtedly it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
, ha 8 It isthe contention of opposite party no.6 that only 62 Villas fell to his share, out of which 41 only paid corpus fund and the remaining 21 villa owners inspite of demands not any amount and it is paid submitted that the complainant association can as well recover the corpus fund from 21 villa owners. If the amount collected from 41 villa owners @ 2.5 lakhs is taken into consideration, it amountS to Rs.1,02,50,000/-. It is also beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. As per Ex.A3 cum General
-Agreement for Development Power of Attorney, the undivided share of opposite party no.6 is 52% and of opposite parties 1 to 5 is 48%. In such case when the villas are 157, the share of opposite party no.6 will be more than 76 villas, but not 61 as contended by him. No document what so ever is filed by DW.1 - opposite party no.6 to the effect that out 157 villas how many villas are constructed in Ac.5.18 guntas of alleged land of opposite parties 1 to 5.
Likewise no document is filed to show the ownership of opposite parties l to 5 over Ac.05.18 guntas and also the agreement between the opposite parties 1 to 5 and opposite party no.6.
So, if the corpus fund alone from 157 villa owners has to be taken into consideration, it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
08). It is contended by the complainant that a compound wall shall be constructed in accordance with the brochure around entire Ac.17.18 guntas and direction shall be given to the opposite party no.6 to construct the same; whereas it is the contention of opposite party no.6 that he completed the construction of the entire compound wall to the extent over the land as mentioned in the Sale Deed, and at another place it is mentioned that only 50 mnts. of compound wall is to be constructed and it was stopped due to the court cases. Neither side has given the value of the total compound wall around the property or the value of the compound wall alleged to have been constructed for the 50 mts.
09). In page 6 of the complaint in para 8 it is mentioned that internal roads have not been completed with block top;
V Seer that no park 1s provided and development on the Northern West corner as shown in the lay out; that necessary equipment as required in the Club House, swimming pool arnd indoor stadium have not been provided. All these goods and services shall be assessed and mentioned in the complaint to arrive at the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission. Uníortunately, al these are barely missing. In these circumstances valuing the complaint notionally at Rs.95 lakhs, even if there is provision to that effect cannot be appreciated. So this point is answered against the complainant with a finding that this Commission is not having any pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the complaint.
10). As this Commission is not having jurisdiction, the other points cannot be decided.
11). In the result , the complaint is returned with instruction to present the same in an appropriate Commission within 30 days from the date of this order and file proof of the same. Thereafter, the record will be sent to the concerned Commission.