National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chantalapudi Sanyasi Rao vs Kadambala Ramprasad & Anr. on 3 August, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 566 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 09/03/2015 in Complaint No. 164/2013 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. CHANTALAPUDI SANYASI RAO S/O. LATE POTHU RAJU, RAGASUVASA APARTMENTS, ASSAM GARDENS, NEAR NEELAMMA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530004 ANDHRA PRADESH ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. KADAMBALA RAMPRASAD & ANR. S/O. K. RAJA RAO, R/O. D NO. 33-5-25/108, BOWDARA ROAD, ALLIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530004 ANDHRA PRADESH 2. SRI PUTCHA CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, PROP. SRI SAI MADHAVA CONSTRUCTIONS, MIG-319, MADHAVADARA, VUDA COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM-530018 ANDHRA PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Vijaya Bhaskar, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 03 Aug 2015 ORDER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. Sri Chantalapudi Sanyasi Rao, the Appellant/OP1, is the owner of land, measuring 350 sq.yds, comprising in Survey No.1444, situated at Allipuram, Visakhapatnam. OP1 entered into an agreement with Sri Putcha Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Respondent No.2/OP2 for construction of residential complex, known as, 'Sri Sai Lendi Vanam'. According to the said agreement, Flat Nos. GF-1, SF-2, TF-1 and TF-2 fell in the share of OP1. Sri Kadambala Ramprasad, the complainant, agreed to purchase Flat No.SF-2 and accordingly entered into an agreement of sale on 17.08.2011 with OP1. The total consideration of the flat was fixed at Rs.27,50,000/-.
2. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 17.08.2011, itself. He agreed to pay another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- at the time of execution of registered sale deed and balance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- after completing construction of the flat. OP1 agreed to complete the construction by the end of December, 2011 and on his failure to do the same, he agreed to refund the amount with interest @ 2% p.a., from the date of execution of the agreement. In the meantime, the complainant further paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 24.08.2011. The receipt acknowledging the same was issued for receipt of the amount. It transpired that by the end of December, 2011, the flat was in semi-finished condition, the complainant offered to pay balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, but the OP1 avoided to receive the same. The complainant sent a telegram on 30.12.2011 expressing his desire to pay the said amount immediately.
3. On the other hand, OP-1 filed a Civil Suit for Permanent Injunction alleging that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant, on 17.08.2011. He contended that at that time, the complainant obtained his signatures on blank papers, blank promissory notes and two blank cheques. The Suit is still pending before the Civil Court. In the meantime, it also transpired that the OP1 had sold the flat to one, Mr. Amit Kumar Anchalla and Smt. Kamala Anchalla, through registered sale deed, dated 07.02.2012, for a consideration of Rs.38.00 lakhs. However, in the sale deed, it was mentioned that the consideration was for Rs.18.00 lakhs. The complainant contended that under these circumstances, he does not intend to purchase the property wherein third-party rights were created. He filed a complaint before the State Commission for refund of his amount, along with interest @ 24% p.a., from the respective dates of payments, till the date of realization and prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards costs.
4. The OP-1 has categorically denied of his entering into an agreement of sale with the complainant or executing receipt of any money/amount from him. OP1 explained that complainant is a money-lender and a rich man who also owns a flat at Allipuram and the residential address was mentioned in the complaint itself. As a matter of fact, OP1 had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only, on 17.08.2011 from the complainant for purchase of said residential complex and agreed to pay the said amount with interest @ 12% p.a. The complainant obtained the signatures of OP1 on blank papers, blank promissory notes and two cheques drawn on Mahesh Co-operative Bank, from OP1. The complainant admitted this fact in the written statement filed before the civil court and also produced blank signed cheques before the court. OP1 discharged the loan of the complainant in the month of November, 2011 and requested him to return the blank signed papers and promissory notes, but the complainant avoided to return the same, on the pretext that the documents got mingled with some other documents in his house. The complainant requested him to sell one of the flats to him and the OP1 agreed to sell one of such flats provided the complainant is ready to pay the market value of the flat. OP1 also issued notice, dated 03.11.2011 to the complainant for return of the documents. The Civil Court has already granted Interim Injunction in his favour. The matter requires adjudication of complicated questions of law and fact and this Commission has no jurisdiction.
5. OP2 admitted the case of the complainant and averred that the flat SF-2 was sold to third-party.
6. The State Commission decided the case in favour of the complainant. It directed the OP1 to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint, till the date of payment and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards costs, to the complainant. It dismissed the complaint against OP2.
7. We have heard the counsel for the Appellant/OP1, at the time of admission of this case. Counsel for OP1 submitted that the consumer fora have got no jurisdiction to try this case. The case was filed before the Civil court and the civil court is yet to adjudicate the matter, finally. He explained that interim injunction has also been granted in favour of the OP1. He further explained that the story of allotment of flat is not correct. OP1 has obtained loan from the complainant in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only.
8. All these arguments raised for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act, lack conviction. According to Section 3 of the C.P.Act, 1986, the provisions of CPA, 1986 are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The Suit for permanent injunction filed by the OP1 cannot fetch refund of the amount paid by the complainant to OP1. The cause of action in both the cases are wee bit different.
9. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the OP1 was made to sign the blank papers. The blank papers are signed by him with open eyes. Nowadays, the world has become so vigilant that nobody can afford to sign on blank papers, leave aside the cheques. The case of the complainant is bolstered by cogent and plausible documentary evidence. It is rudimentary principle of jurisprudence that documentary evidence will always get pre-ponderance over the oral evidence because it is well- known axiom of law that 'men may tell lies, but the documents cannot'. So, we place reliance upon the above said documentary evidence.
10. To understand an event, it's concomitant circumstances must be understood, too. After signing the blank papers, OP1 remained silent for a long time. He could not muster the courage to inform the police. No motive can be attributed on the part of OP2. Blank papers were signed by OP1, what was the purpose of signing so many blank papers, as well as signing two blank cheques, was never disclosed. It is also difficult to fathom as to how and why, he had signed on blank documents. No reason is forthcoming. The case of the Appellant is opaque despite the explanation given by him. OP1 did not state that he was having bad blood with OP2. It is also interesting to note that the OP1 sent notice to the complainant in November, 2011, followed by a telegram on 30.12.2011. The OP1 did not care a fig for the same. He went on to sell the house despite the fact that the dispute/case was pending with the complainant. It is also surprising to note that the complainant was to get the flat for a sum of Rs.27,50,000/-, but he sold the same for Rs.18,00,000/- only. Consequently, the allegation made by the OP1 that, as a matter of fact, it was sold for Rs.38,00,000/- assumes importance. The case put forward by the OP1 is made out of whole cloth. It does not just stack up. This is a 'cock-and-bull' story upon which no reliance can be placed. Furthermore, what surprises this Commission most, is the fact that loan was refunded without getting those blank documents back.
11. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. We dismiss the First Appeal, but also add that the amounts as ordered by the State Commission, be deposited with the State Commission by OP1 and the State Commission will disburse the said amounts against Indemnity Bond, which be filed before the State Commission by the complainant, with the direction that, in case, the civil court decides this case against the complainant, the said amount would be refunded to OP1.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER