National Consumer Disputes Redressal
R. Suri & Anr. vs Abhishek Govi on 12 September, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1579 OF 2013 (From the order dated 18.02.2013 in Appeal No. 1088/2011 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) With IA/2757/2013 (Stay) 1. R. Suri Babu S/o Sri Satyanarayana Managing Director M/s. Raja Constructions & Infrastructures R/o Flat No. 23, Lakshmi Gayatri Enclave Pragati Nagar R.R. District (A.P.) 2. Y. Nagesh Babu S/o Sri Seetharamaswamy Managing Partner M/s. Raja Constructions & Infrastructures R/o Flat No. 502, Sai Mayuri Chaitanya Estates MIG 515, 516, KPHB Colony IV Phase Kukatpally, R.R. District (A.P.) Petitioners/Opp. Parties (OP) Versus Abhishek Govi S/o Sri M.N. Govil Employee R/o Flat No. 203, Sai Nilayam Apts Kondapur, Kothaguda, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh. Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mrs. Radha, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 12th September, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/OP against the order dated 18.2.2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1088/2011 Abhishek Govil Vs. R.Suri Babu & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and complaint was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent entered into an agreement to purchase flat No. 109 in Block-C Rajas Sunrise Height from OP/petitioner for a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- out of which, complainant paid Rs.25,000/- by cheque dated 10.8.2008.
Complainant also paid Rs.10,75,000/- loan taken from LIC to the OP. Complainant entered into an agreement of construction with the OP for semi-finished flat and this document was registered on 26.11.2008.
OP failed to complete the semi-finished flat and permitted conversion of the residential project into commercial complex and later on handed over BlockC of the building to M/s. Gayatri Education Society for running Boys Hostel and did not handover flat to the complainant. On demand made by the complainant, OP agreed to return total Rs.12,28,615/- including Rs.11,00,000/- received and issued two cheques for Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- which were dishonoured. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP/complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant is not entitled to any relief without cancellation of agreement of construction dated 26.11.2008. It was further alleged that District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further alleged that complainant ought to have filed suit for recovery of the amount or specific performance of the agreement and complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint in view of the agreement dated 5.3.2010 and 10.6.2010. Appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order by which petitioner was directed to deposit before District Forum the amount in terms of agreement dated 5.3.2010 and respondent was permitted to withdraw the amount after executing deed cancelling the agreement in respect of aforesaid flat no. 109 in Block C in Rajas Sunrise Height against which, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint was not maintainable before District Forum and learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.
5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that petitioner has not carried out construction as per agreement dated 26.11.2008 and petitioner converted residential project into commercial complex and handed over Block-C of the building to M/s. Gayatri Education Society for Boys Hostel. Thus, it becomes clear that petitioner failed to handover flat to the respondent and petitioner agreed to pay the amount received from respondent vide agreement dated 5.3.2010 and 10.6.2010 and cheques issued by petitioner were also dishonoured. In such circumstances, District Forum had jurisdiction and District Forum committed mistake in dismissing complaint for want of jurisdiction.
6. Learned State Commission while deciding appeal rightly observed as under:
21. In terms of Exs.A2 and A3 the respondents agreed to pay back amount received from the appellant and the appellant was required to cancel the sale deed executed by the respondents and handover vacant possession of the flat to the respondents. The leasing out of block-C to M/s Gayatri Educational Society by the respondents does not disentitle the appellant from invoking jurisdiction of consumer forum, for the respondents entered into lease agreement with M/s Gayatri Educational Society on their failure to carry out the construction of flat and provide amenities thereto. Even if it is assumed that the appellant along with other flat owners authorised the respondents to let block-C of the building to M/s Gayatri Educational Society, it would not in any manner affect the right of the appellant to clutch the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.
22. Having agreed to return the amount mentioned in Exs.A2, A3 and A4, the respondents failed to keep their promise and their failure to return the amount to the appellant constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The respondents are liable to pay the amount in terms of agreement dated 5.3.2010. The appellant shall execute deed cancelling the agreement dated 26.11.2008.
7. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs ..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k