State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nagarjunakonda Jyothi Sree,Krishna ... vs Sri Raja Rajeswari Estates,Rep. By Its ... on 9 January, 2013
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD. F.A.No. 693/2011 against C.C.No.51/2010, Dist. Forum, Guntur. Between: Nagarjunakonda Jyothi Sree, W/o.Venkata Sundrachary, Hindu, Aged about 40 yrs., R/o.B-4, Sai Chaitanya Towers, Krishna Nagar, Guntur. Appellant/ Complainant And Sri Raja Rajeswari Estates, Rep. by its Managing Director, S.Gurava Reddy, C/o.Ratnakar Reddy, R/o.D.No.4-7-63/6, Chagantisambireddy Bazar, Koritepadu , Guntur. Respondent/ Opp.party. Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.G.L.Nageswara Rao Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.T.Sridhar QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT, And SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
Oral Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member).
*** The unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal against the order dt.23.3.2011 of the District Forum, Guntur made in C.C.No.51/2010 filed by the appellant/complainant seeking direction to the opposite party to register the plot nos. 364, 366 and 367 in Subhodaya Nagar, Group-I to an extent of 200 sq.yards each, in favour of the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony caused to the complainant.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is that the opposite party is doing business in real estate. Due to the representation made by the opposite party, the complainant joined as a member in Subhodaya Group-I on 14.5.2002 and subscribed for three plots and paid Rs.5000/- as first instalment and paid Rs.1000/- as 35th instalment and at that juncture, the complainant was still liable to pay Rs.40,000/- for each plot, as she has already paid Rs.40,000/- for each plot, and the opposite party offered the complainant that if she pays Rs.30,000/- at a time, the complainant would be given the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- as discount, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.80,000/- for each plot and in pursuance of the offer given by the opposite party, the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- for each of the three plots in the form of cash. The complainant totally paid an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- as total purchase price, excluding discount amount of Rs.10,000/- for each plot. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands and requests made by the complainant, the opposite party is not coming forward to register the plots and deliver the vacant possession as agreed, though the entire cost of the plots was received by him, thereby causing mental agony to the complainant. Thus there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint.
Resisting the complaint, the opposite party filed written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that one Gurrala Punna Rao and his two sons, who are the absolute owner of Ac.1.24 cents of land in D.Nos.338/1A and 338/1B situated at Pedapalakaluru Village, offered to sell for discharge of their family expenses to the opposite party and the bargain was settled at Rs.3,96,000/- and on 25.3.2000, the above said persons entered into an agreement with this opposite party and on even date received Rs.1,32,000/- as an advance. As per the terms of the agreement, the balance amount has to be paid within 15 months. Subsequently, this opposite party paid in all Rs.3,04,200/- to the said Punna Rao and his sons and they endorsed the said payments on the back side of the agreement.
Subsequently, the said Punna Rao wanted to resile from the agreement and began to dodge the execution of agreement. Later, the said Punna Rao and sons adjusted with the opposite party and executed the registered sale deed dt. 19.6.2003 for Rs.1,49,000/- having paid back the balance sale consideration and possession was delivered to the opp.party.
While so, in August, 2003, the opposite party received injunction order in O.S.No.383/2003 on the file of Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur against this opposite party. So the opposite party was compelled to file the suit in O.S.No.171/2005 Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur for declaration of title and for other reliefs. In those circumstances, the opposite party stated to the complainant that as the litigation in between the opposite party and its vendors is pending before the Civil Court, the opposite party is unable to register the plots in favour of the complainant, till the disposal of the said suits. Inspite of that, the complainant filed the present complaint with a view to have unlawful gain and harass the opposite party and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove her case, the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the opposite party, its Managing Director S.Gurava Reddy filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 & B2.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that any registered sale deed if any executed by the opposite party during the pendency of O.S.No.171/2005 and O.S.No.383/2003 will be hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore the contention of the opposite party that it could not execute the sale deeds in favour of the complainant in the above circumstances is just and reasonable and does not amount to deficiency in service. Consequently, the District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that if the complainant wants a regular sale deed in her favour, during the pendency of O.S.No.171/2005, she is at liberty to obtain the sale deed by incurring registration expenses by serving notice in writing in advance to the opposite party and the opposite party after receiving such notice should execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant within 15 days.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the above appeal urging that the order of the District Forum in dismissing the complaint is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. That the District Forum ought to have allowed the complainant in view of the observations given in favour of the complainant. That the District Forum grossly erred in dismissing the complaint basing on the submissions of the respondent/opposite party and without considering the actual aspects. That the order of the District Forum is creating ambiguity as it has made an observation with regard to the registration of the plot by the respondent/opposite party in favour of the appellant/complainant. Finally, the appellant prays for allowing the appeal and consequent allowing of the complaint.
We heard both sides.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is the case of the complainant that she joined as a member in Subhodaya Nagar Group I venture of opposite party on 14.5.2002 and subscribed for three plots and that she was allotted the plot nos.364, 366 & 367 to an extent of 200 sq. yards each and paid Rs.70,000/- for each plot + Rs.10,000/- as discount, totaling to Rs.80,000/- for each plot.
As rightly observed by the District Forum, the opposite party did not specifically deny the above contentions of the complainant. Infact, the opposite party admitted the above facts as it is evident from his pleadings in the written version and also statement of its Managing Director in the evidence affidavit. It is therefore to be inferred that the complainant paid Rs.80,000/- per each plot. Ex.A1 copy of the Plot Confirmation, issued by the opposite party, on 3.12.2002 revealed that the opposite party confirmed allotment of the plots in favour of the complainant and issued Exs.A6, A7 and A8 pass books in favour of the complainant. As seen from Exs. A6 to A8 passbooks the last payment of Rs.1000/- was made on 26.4.2005.
The contention of the opposite party is that they could not execute the registered sale deeds in favour of the complainant regarding the allotted three plots, due to filing of the suit in O.S.No.383/2003 on the file of Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur by G.Punna Rao and his sons i.e. the vendors of the opposite party and due to subsequent to filing of the suit in O.S.No.171/2005 filed by the opposite party, on the file of the same Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, for declaration of title and for other reliefs and that he informed the same to the complainant, but the complainant filed the present complaint to have unlawful gain and to harass the opposite party and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
From the contentions of the complainant, it is evident that the complainant is willing to obtain the registered sale deeds regarding the three plots admitting the opposite partys title to the said three plots, inspite of the above pendency of the two suits in O.S.No.383/2003 and O.S.No.171/2005. Therefore, the opposite party need not bother about the applicability of the principle of lis-pendency under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act if sale deed was executed by him, during the pendency of the said suit. It is not the case of the opposite party that he cannot execute the sale deeds in favour of the complainant in view of the pendency of the above said suits. It is also not the case of the opposite party that there is injunction order restraining them from alienating the plots. Under these circumstances, the opposite party is not justified in postponing the execution of the sale deeds in favour of the complainant, regarding the allotted three plots on the ground that the above said two suits are pending.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, having accepted the entire case of the complainant, the District Forum, instead of observing that if the complainant wants a regular sale deeds in her favour, during the pendency of O.S.No.171/2005, she is at liberty to obtain the sale deeds by incurring the registration expenses by serving a notice in writing in advance to the opposite party and the opposite party, after receiving such notice, should execute the sale deeds in favour of the complainant within 15 days after receipt of such notice, ought to have allowed the complaint, directing the opposite party to execute the sale deeds, with regard to the three plots, in favour of the complainant, finding that there is deficiency in service.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the firm view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not registering the sale deeds in favour of the complainant with regard to the three allotted plots mentioned above, even after receipt of the entire sale consideration. Undoubtedly, due to the conduct of the opposite party, the complainant was subjected to mental agony. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to claim compensation for the mental agony caused to her by the opposite party. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is allowed, in part, directing the opposite party to execute registered sale deeds in favour of the complainant with regard to, three allotted plots. The complainant is directed to bear the required registration expenses. The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards costs of the complaint and this appeal. The opposite party is directed to comply with the order, within six weeks, from the date of this order.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER PM* dt.9.1.2013