State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Sunil Bhatt, S/O. Shri Kirit Bhatt, ... vs Aliens Space Statiion, Gachibowli ... on 29 April, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana Complaint Case No. CC/6/2014 1. 1. Sunil Bhatt, S/o. Shri Kirit Bhatt, Age: 41 Years, Occ: Engineer, Resident of Flat No.42, Daisy Serene County, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500 032. 2. 2. Smt. Vanita, W/o. Sunil Bhatt, Age 36, Occ: House Maker, Resident of Flat No.42, Daisy Serence Country, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500 032. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Aliens Space Statiion, Gachibowli Tellapur, Hyderabad-502 032. Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri Hari Challa S/o. Sri C.V.R. Choudary. 2. 2. Aliens Space Station, Gachibowli, Tellapur, Hyderabad-502 032. Rep. by its Joint Managing Director, Venkat Prasanna S/o. Sri C.V.R. Choudary. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : AT HYDERABAD CC NO. 06 OF 2014 Between :
1) Sunil Bhatt S/o Shri Kirit Bhatt, Aged 41, Occ: Engineer, R/o Flat No.42, Daisy Serene County, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500 032. 2) Vanita W/o Sunil Bhatt, Aged 36, Occ: House Maker, R/o Flat No.42, Daisy Serene County, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500 032. Complainants And 1) Aliens Space Station, Gachibowli-Tellapur, Hyderabad - 502 032 Rep. by its Managing Director Sri Hari Challa S/o C.V.R.Chowdary. 2) Aliens Space Station, Gachibowli-Tellapur, Hyderabad - 502 032 Rep. by its Joint Managing Director Venkat Prasanna S/o C.V.R.Chowdary Opposite parties Counsel for the Complainants : Sri M.Rajkumar Counsel for the Opposite parties : M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar Coram : Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla ... President Friday, the Twenty Nineth day of April Two thousand Sixteen Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) ***
The complaint is filed under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainants complaining deficiency in service against the Opposite parties claimed refund of Rs.20,89,626/- with interest from April 2012 to December 2013 @ 24% and further interest from the date of filing till date of realization; to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-; costs of Rs.25,000/- and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Lured by the wide publicity made by the Opposite parties, offering the sale of plots in the forthcoming project named "Aliens Hub" project ID A10/HUB, complainants having interested in the purchase of the plots approached the Opposite parties who offered plots in the ensuing project to the ambitious and interested purchasers before acquisition of land required for the entire project and the requisite permissions are obtained for a reasonable price as a pre-launch offer on payment of the amount in advance and agreed to reserve an area of 500 square yards in the "Aliens Hub" giving right to the purchaser to choose/allot the plot in the project on booking number priority basis after the plans are prepared and approved.
3. The Opposite parties have entered into an Agreement of sale-cum Reservation with the Complainants on 19.01.2008 for purchase of two plots measuring 500 square yards each plotted and developed area in the forthcoming project named "Aliens Hub" project ID A10/HUB/199 & 200 for a consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- each. The Complainants made the total payment of Rs.15,00,000/- towards two plots measuring 500 square yards each. As per the agreement, the Opposite parties have to register the sale deed by December 2010 and will get all the final approvals by December 2011 from the authorities concerned. Contrary to the same, the Opposite parties failed to honour the terms of agreement which amounts to breach of contract and they are liable to compensate.
4. The Complainants stated to have visited the Opposite parties several times, had regular contacts on phone, mobile, SMS and e-mails and demanded them for registration of Sale deed in their favour as per the agreement but they failed to respond and neglected causing mental agony and suffering to Complainants. The Opposite parties sent a confirmation letter dated 18.06.2012 informing that they are making the payment of Rs.16,02,953/- as per the schedule and again sent another letter dated 22.06.2012 confirming that they are making payment of Rs.13,52,953/- as per the schedule.
5. As per clause (d) of the Agreement of sale cum Reservation, the Opposite parties agreed to register the sale deed by December 2010 and will get all the final approvals by December 2011 from the concerned authorities. As per clause (e) of the said Agreement, the Opposite parties agreed and undertook to pay Rs.500/- per 500 square yards and Rs.1000/- per 1000 square yards per month to the purchaser as a penalty per unit, if they fail to give the vacant possession of the schedule property earmarked along with the boundaries within 4 years from the date of the agreement.
6. The cheques given by the Opposite parties towards refund of the amount were dishonoured. The Complainants got issued notice dated 11.11.2012 demanding refund of their money with interest and compensation, to which the Opposite parties failed to respond. Despite the promises given by the Ops, the actual progress on site was not commensurate with the promises made by them. Hence, filed the present complaint with the above reliefs, as stated, supra.
7. The Opposite parties resisted the claim on the premise that the complaint is vexatious filed by complainants for illegal benefit as they are not consumers as defined under the Act. The Complainants purchased the plots and entered into Agreement of sale-cum-Reservation on 19.01.2008 and now they want to cancel the agreement. However, the Opposite parties refunded the amount and also settled the account of Complainants by way of cheques for Rs.14,92,590/-. Having received the amount, the Complainants failed to return the cheques. Hence, the Opposite parties ordered for stop payment of the cheques. The Complainants are liable for criminal action as they cheated the Opposite parties by filing the present complaint.
8. That, as per the terms of the agreement, it is only a reservation of plot as previously basing on the market circumstances and future hike of prices and possibilities thereon to get a benefit, the complainants entered for reservation of flats at a very lower price. The Complainants never demanded for cancellation of the flats. There is no deficiency in service on their part. The Opposite parties did not receive any notice, much less the notice dated 11.11.2012.
9. There is no cause of action for the present complaint and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as lack of cause of action and the cause of action described does not show any existing cause of action to file the complaint. The Complainants are not entitled for any reliefs, much less the amount of Rs.20,89,626/-. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
10. On behalf of the Complainants, Sunil Bhatt filed his evidence affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A15. On behalf of the Opposite parties, the Managing Director of the OP No.1 Company has filed the affidavit and the documents, Ex.B1 to B18.
11. The counsel for the Opposite parties had filed written arguments.
12. The points for consideration is
i) Whether the complaint is not a 'consumer dispute'?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties?
iii) To what relief ?
13. POINT NO.1 : The Complainants entered into "Agreement of sale cum reservation" of plot on 19.01.2008 with the Opposite party No.1 for purchase of two plots each measuring 500 square yards in the Aliens Hub Project ID A10/HUB by paying an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and thereafter the Complainants paid the entire consideration amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards two plots. The Opposite parties issued confirmation letter in favour of the Complainants confirming the booking of plots with priority No.A10/HUB/199 & 200.
14. In terms of the agreement of sale, the Opposite parties agreed to develop the land into residential high-rise apartments and accordingly offered the plots in the ensuing project. As per the terms of agreement, the Opposite parties agreed to earmark the schedule property along with the boundaries within four years from the date of agreement i.e., by December 2011. It was further agreed by the Opposite parties to lay roads, footpath, street lights, provide security 24 hours, water supply equipments, power equipment, protect the property and do common areas landscaping. It also undertook to maintain the entire project for 10 years from the date of receipt of final approvals of the Layout. It also agreed to facilitate its customers for getting building permissions from the concerned authorities subject to payment of fee. Apart from above, the Opposite parties also promised and assured several other amenities. These would go to show that the same would be rendered on payment of proper fee, which is nothing but rendering services for a price, which clearly constitute a 'consumer dispute'. Admittedly, the Opposite parties received the entire sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- from the Complainant as can be seen from Ex.A2 to A6. For the above reasons, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.
15. In the arguments, counsel for Complainants reiterated the same facts as averred in the complaint. No reasons are assigned by the Opposite parties in their written version as to why the necessary approvals were not obtained except contending that they have returned the entire consideration amount to the Complainants. In that regard, no piece of paper is filed to show that the amounts are returned to the Complainants. On other hand, the documents filed by Complainants goes to show that the cheques issued by the Opposite parties were dishonoured.
16. On the other hand, the documents exhibited by the Complainants would go to show that they paid the total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- to the Opposite parties towards two plots and the Opposite parties failed to execute the sale deed. Though the Opposite parties agreed to earmark the schedule property with boundaries, they failed to even after considerable period of time, which amounts to sheer negligence and deficiency in service on their part.
20. POINTS No.2 & 3 : Not keeping promise to complete the earmarking of the schedule property along with boundaries within four years from the date of agreement, and failing to deliver possession of the open plots constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants have two options left for recovery of the amount, either by filing suit in court of law or by way of filing complaint before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in view of the amount claimed falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission. The contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable is not sustainable.
25. The complainants claimed refund of the amount together with accumulated interest amounting to Rs.20,89,626/- together with interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and further claimed the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.25,000/-. In the circumstances, the complainants are entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount paid from the respective dates of payment till realization.
26. It is pertinent to state here that as per Ex.A2 to A5, the Complainants paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000-00 as against the total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-.
27. In the above facts and circumstances, the points 1 to 3 are answered accordingly holding that the Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts to the Complainants.
28. In the result, the complaint is allowed holding that Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable and they are directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realisation, together with costs of Rs.6000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT 29.04.2016 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For Complainant : For Opposite parties : Affidavit evidence of Sunil Affidavit evidence of Hari Bhatt as PW1. Challa as RW1. EXHIBITS MARKED For Complainant :
Ex.A1 is the copy of Agreement of sale-cum-Reservation, dated 19.01.2008.
Ex.A2 is the copy of receipt bearing No.50080, dated 06.01.2008 for Rs.2,50,000/-.
Ex.A3 is the copy of receipt bearing No.50081, dated 06.01.2008 for Rs.2,50,000/-.
Ex.A4 is the copy of receipt bearing No.60133, dated 08.02.2008 for Rs.5,00,000/-.
Ex.A5 is the copy of receipt bearing No.60129, dated 04.02.2008 for Rs.5,00,000/-.
Ex.A6 is the copy of confirmation letter dated 18.06.2012 addressed by the Opposite parties to the Complainant.
Ex.A7 is the copy of letter addressed by Opposite parties to the Complainants.
Ex.A8 is the copy of representation dated 11.10.2013 addressed by the Complainants to the Opposite parties.
Ex.A9 is the copy of cheque bearing No.220144, dated 27.04.2012 for Rs.4,50,000/- issued in favour of Complainant No.1.
Ex.A10 is the copy of cheque bearing No.220145, dated 24.05.2012 for Rs.4,50,000/- issued in favour of Complainant No.1.
Ex.A11 is the copy of cheque bearing No.220155, dated 24.06.2012 for Rs.3,00,000/- issued in favour of the Complainant No.1.
Ex.A12 is the copy of cheque bearing No.220154, dated 24.06.2012 for Rs.2,92,590/- issued in favour of Complainant No.1.
Ex.A13 is the copy of cheque return memo dated 28.03.2012 in respect of cheque No.220143.
Ex.A14 is the copy of cheque return memo dated 25.08.2012 in respect of cheque No.220145 Ex.A15 is the copy of the Development Plan released by the Opposite parties.
For Opposite parties :
Ex.B1 Copy of Lr.No.252931/4/2007 addressed by Principal Secretary to Government to Vice, Chairman, HUDA, Hyderabad for change of land use.
Ex.B2 Copy of G.O.Ms.No.288, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (I1) Department, dated 03.04.2008 (HMDA revised master plan).
Ex.B3 Copy of (report) Lr.No.D1/3601/2007, dated 05.05.2007 addressed by District Collector, Medak to Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, HUDA along with map.
Ex.B4 Copy of minutes of meeting of multi-storeyed building committee for HUDA area held on 29.02.08 at 3-00 pm in the chambers of Vice-Chairman, HUDA (4 basements + Ground + 13 Upper Floors).
Ex.B5 Copy of Lr.No.1927/Misc/Plg/H/2008, dated 31.03.2008 addressed by HUDA to the Principal Secretary to Government for 30 meters road alignment in Sy.No.384 & 385.
Ex.B6 Copy of Lr.No.621/P4/Plg/HUDA/2008, dated 11.04.2008 addressed by HUDA to OP No.1 approving 4 basements + Ground + 13 upper floors).
Ex.B7 Copy of Lr.No.621/Pr/Plg/HUDA/ 2008, dated 11.04.2008 addressed by HUDA to Executive Authority, Tellapur Gram Panchayat according technical permission of residential apartments.
Ex.B8 Copy of minutes of meeting of multi-storeyed building committee for MSB in HUDA area held on 05.06.2008 at the chambers of Vice-Chairman, HUDA (4 basements + ground + 29 upper floors).
Ex.B9 Copy of Lr.No.621/P4/Plg/HMDA/2008, dated 14.10.2009 addressed by HMDA to the Executive Authority, Tellapur Gram Panchayat according technical permission of residential apartments (4 basements + ground + 20 upper floors).
Ex.B10 Copy of Lr.No.SEIAA/AP/MDK-14/08, dated 12.08.2008 addressed by State Level Enviornment Impact Assessment Authority, Hyderabad to according environmental clearances to Opposite parties.
Ex.B11 Copy of Lr.No.19038/I1/2009, dated 24.11.2009 addressed by Principal Secretary to Government to Ops (clearance of GOMs.No.111).
Ex.B12 Copy of letter addressed by Opposite parties, dated 08.10.2010 to the HMDA, Hyd (revised application and plans for building permission consisting of 3 basement + ground + 29 upper floors).
Ex.B13 Copy of Lr.No.10186/MP1/Plg/HMDA dated 28.03.2011 addressed by HMDA to the Ops to pay publication charges for change of land use from residential to commercial.
Ex.B14 Copy of cash acknowledgement receipt bearing No.825631 for Rs.1,000/- in File No.2011-2-431 for new water connection.
Ex.B15 Copy of Certificate of best compliments issued by Indian Green Building Council in favour of the Opposite parties company.
Ex.B16 Copy of certificate of best compliments awarded by Cityscape in favour of the Opposite parties company.
Ex.B17 Copy of letter addressed by the Opposite parties to the purchaser by name S.Pragathi intimating to take possession of the flat, dated 02.11.2015.
Ex.B18 Copies of photographs of flat occupants occupying the completed flats.
PRESIDENT 29.04.2016 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT