State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. M/S.Gpr Housing Pvt. Ltd., vs Mrs. Naseema Farwaz on 25 April, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/134/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 06/04/2016 in Case No. CC/220/2014 of District Hyderabad) 1. 1. M/s.GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Sri. G. Punna Rao, Branch Office 603 and 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 5000029 2. 2. M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Regd Office 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur 522002, Rep by its MD Sri G. Punna Rao ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mrs.Zubeda Sultana W/o Mohd. Munawar Naseeruddin, aged about 36 years, Indian, Occ. Pvt Service, R/o Block No D -3, Flat No 83, Shanti Sikhara Apartments, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 500082. ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/135/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 06/04/2016 in Case No. CC/229/2014 of District Hyderabad) 1. 1. M/s.GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Sri. G. Punna Rao, Branch Office 603 and 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 5000029 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mrs. Naseema Farwaz D/o Mohd. Naseeruddin, aged about 30 years, Occ. House wife, R/o H.No 1-9-709, Julywada, Subedar, Hanamkonda ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/136/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 06/04/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/261/2014 of District Hyderabad) 1. 1. M/s.GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Sri. G. Punna Rao, Branch Office 603 and 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 5000029 2. 2. M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., REgd Office 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur 522002, Rep by its MD Sri G. Punna Rao ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mrs. Shaik Afzal Bee, W/o Late Shaik Hussain, aged about 73 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o H.No. 1-1-1489, Venkatadri Nagar, Kazipet, Warangal 506001 ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/137/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 06/04/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/221/2014 of District Hyderabad) 1. 1. M/s.GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Sri. G. Punna Rao, Branch Office 603 and 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 5000029 2. 2. M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., REgd Office 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur 522002, Rep by its MD Sri G. Punna Rao ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mohammad Azeemuddin, S/o. Naseeruddin, aged about 34 years, Indian, Occ. Private Employee, R/o H.No 1-9-709, Julyweda, Subedari, Hanamkonda. ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/138/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 06/04/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/223/2014 of District Hyderabad) 1. 1. M/s.GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Sri. G. Punna Rao, Branch Office 603 and 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 5000029 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mohammad Rajuddin S/o Ankoor, aged about 27 years, Occ. Private Service, Indian, H.NO 16-10-1226, Shiva Nagar, Warangal 2. 2. M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., REgd Office 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur 522002, Rep by its MD Sri G. Punna Rao ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/139/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 06/04/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/264/2014 of District Hyderabad) 1. 1. M/s.GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Sri. G. Punna Rao, Branch Office 603 and 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 5000029 2. 2. M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., REgd Office 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur 522002, Rep by its MD Sri G. Punna Rao ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mrs. Rizwana, W/o Mohd. Raj Mohammed, D/o Mohd Abbas, aged about 32 years, Indian, Occ. Employee, R/o H.NO 6-3-1092/D3/83, Shanti Sikhara Residency, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500082 ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/140/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 06/04/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/222/2014 of District Hyderabad) 1. 1. M/s.GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Sri. G. Punna Rao, Branch Office 603 and 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 5000029 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mohammad Rafiuddin S/o Naseeruddin, aged about 26 years, Indian, Occ. Private Employee, H.NO 1-9-709, Julyweda, Subedari, Hanmakonda ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 25 Apr 2017 Final Order / Judgement
BEFORE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD F.A.No. 134 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.220 OF 2014 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM HYDERABAD-I Between M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. G.Punna Rao Branch Office : 603 & 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500029, M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur - 500002, Rep. by its M.D., Mr. G.Punna Rao Appellants/opposite parties A N D Mrs Zubeda Sultana W/o Mohd. Munawar Naseeruddin Aged about 36 years, Occ: Private Service R/o Block No.D-3, Flat No.83, Shanti Sihkara Apartments Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082 Respondent/complainant F.A.No. 135 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.229 OF 2014 Between M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. G.Punna Rao Branch Office : 603 & 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500029, M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur - 500002, Rep. by its M.D., Mr. G.Punna Rao Appellants/opposite parties A N D Mrs.Naseema Farwaz D/o Md.Naseeruddin Aged about 30 years, Occ: House Wife R/o H.No.1-9-709, Julywada, Subedar Hanamkonda Respondent/complainant F.A.No. 136 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.261 OF 2014 Between M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. G.Punna Rao Branch Office : 603 & 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500029, M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur - 500002, Rep. by its M.D., Mr. G.Punna Rao Appellants/opposite parties A N D Mrs. Shaik Afzal Bee W/o late Shaik Hussain Aged about 73 years, Occ: House Wife R/o H.No.1-1-1489, Venkatadri Nagar Kazipet, Warangal-506001 Respondent/complainant F.A.No. 137 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.221 OF 2014 Between M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. G.Punna Rao Branch Office : 603 & 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500029, M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur - 500002, Rep. by its M.D., Mr. G.Punna Rao Appellants/opposite parties A N D Mohammad Azeemuddin S/o Naseeruddin Aged about 34 years, Occ: Private Employee R/o H.No.1-9-709, Julyweda, Subedari, Hanamkonda Respondent/complainant F.A.No. 138 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.223 OF 2014 Between M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. G.Punna Rao Branch Office : 603 & 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500029, M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur - 500002, Rep. by its M.D., Mr. G.Punna Rao Appellants/opposite parties A N D Mohammad Rajuddin S/o Ankoor Aged about 27 years, Occ: Private Service H.No.16-10-1226, Shiva Nagar, Warangal Respondent/complainant F.A.No. 139 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.264 OF 2014 Between M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. G.Punna Rao Branch Office : 603 & 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500029, M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur - 500002, Rep. by its M.D., Mr. G.Punna Rao Appellants/opposite parties A N D Mrs Rizwana W/o Mohad Raj Mohammed D/o Mohd Abbas, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Employee, R/o H.No.6-3-1092/D3 Shanti Sikhara Residency, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500082 Respondent/complainant F.A.No. 140 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.222 OF 2014 Between M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. G.Punna Rao Branch Office : 603 & 304, Babu Khan Estates, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad - 500029, M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, 7/2, Arundelpet, Guntur - 500002, Rep. by its M.D., Mr. G.Punna Rao Appellants/opposite parties A N D Mohammad Rafiuddin S/o Naseeruddin Aged about 26 years, Occ: Private Employee H.No.1-9-709, Julyweda, Subedari Hanamkonda Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellant M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates Counsel for the Respondent Sri GN Satyanarayana QUORUM :
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT & SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER TUESDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) *** These appeals FA Nos.134 to 140 of 2016 are preferred by the opposite parties aggrieved by the order of the District Forum-I, Hyderabad in CC Nos.220 to 223, 229, 261 and 269 of 2014 dated 06.04.2016.
2. Though separate orders were passed in each of these complaints, in the light of the fact that common questions of fact and law arise, we deem it fit that a common order can be passed in all these matters. We narrate the facts in F.A. 134/2016 as representative case for better appreciation.
3. The brief facts of the complainant, as stated in the complaint, are that he joined as member in the venture floated by the opposite parties, wherein it was agreed to sell house plots consisting of 400 sq.yds and 200 sq.yds respectively and further they promised to construct club house, provide resorts, parks, roads, street lighting, drainage lines, drinking water supply and electricity in the layout area. The complainant purchased the plot admeasuring 200 sq.yds by paying entire sale consideration amount of Rs.80,000/-. The opposite parties registered the sale deed in favour of the complainant on 22.06.2007. Even though the opposite parties executed sale deed but there was no development as promised. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint with the prayer to direct the opposite parties to develop the lay out as per the approved plan and specifications and handover the possession of the plot or in the alternative to refund the sale consideration of Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of sale deed together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
4. The opposite parties resisted the case and contended that the complaint is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action and limitation. The opposite parties executed the sale deed on 22.06.2007 wherein it is very clearly mentioned that the possession was given to the complainant in the year 2007 itself. The complainant kept quiet all those years and filed the complaint in the year 2014 stating that the opposite parties failed to handover the plot by completing all the amenities. The complainant failed to file any condone delay petition to condone the delay of 7 years for filing the complaint. As per the contract, after receipt of the amount, the terms of the contract would end on registering the sale deed in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties never agreed for developing the said venture. If at all any development is required, the complainant has to pay the developmental charges according to the rules and regulations of the statutory authorities for the above said venture. Hence, complaint may be dismissed.
5. The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 and A2 marked, while the opposite parties filed the affidavit evidence of its Managing Director, Sri G.Punna Rao and no documents have been filed/marked.
6. The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that opposite parties having collected the amount for allotment of plot, failed to develop the same hence directed opposite parties to refund Rs.80,000/- with interest 9% p.a. from 07.03.2012 till the date of realization and after such refund the complainant shall re-convey the property by executing the sale deed in favour of the opposite parties and opposite parties pay costs of Rs.5,000/-
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite parties preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. The opposite parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action and limitation. As per the contract, after receipt of the amount, the terms of the contract would end on registering the sale deed in favour of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. The counsel for the Complainant and the Opposite parties have advanced their arguments in addition to filing written arguments on behalf of Complainant. Heard both sides.
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
10. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased 200 sq.yards of plot under Ex.A1, Sale Deed dated 22.02.2007. The opposite parties also admitted execution of sale deed in favour of the complainant after receipt of sale consideration of Rs.80,000/-. It is disputed by the opposite parties that they agreed for developing of the said venture. If at all any development is required, the complainant has to pay the developmental charges according to the rules and regulations of the statutory authorities for the above said venture. The opposite parties, among other things, have raised preliminary objections that the forum has no territorial jurisdiction, lack of cause of action and limitation.
11. Therefore, under these circumstances, firstly, we have to consider the point of jurisdiction. Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 deals with territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum and sub-section 2 is relevant :-
11(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain;
PROVIDED that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arise.
12. On going through the said sub-Section 2 of Section 11, it is to be noted that the complaint can be filed within local limits of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum where Opposite Party or each of the Opposite Parties where there are more than one Opposite Party at the time of incident of the complaint actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business or has branch office and personally works for gain. In the present case, the opposite party no.1 is having its address at Hyderabad while opposite party No.2 is having its office at Guntur District. Opposite party no.1 is admittedly branch office of the opposite party no.2 carrying on its business through opposite party no.1 Therefore, where there are more than one opposite parties in the complaint, each of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum can have jurisdiction in a territorial area where one of the opposite parties has residence.
13. Now, secondly, the opposite parties raised objection with regard to limitation. They contended that the registration of sale deed was done on 22.06.2007 and the complaint was filed in the year 2014 as such the complaint is barred by limitation.
14. In the instant case, the sale deed was executed and possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant on 22.06.2007. The complainant had not adduced any evidence to the effect that, he demanded for development of the venture or for refund of the amount paid to the opposite parties. She had chosen to issue legal notice dated 10.08.2013 to the opposite parties calling upon them to develop the layout as per the approved plan and specifications and handover the possession of the plot to her. The complaint is filed seeking to develop the lay out as per the approved plan and specifications and handover the possession of the plot or in the alternative to refund the amount paid by her with interest, compensation and costs.
15. It is the case of the complainant that on the misrepresentations of the opposite parties that they would develop the venture as per the approved plan and specifications like laying roads, erecting street lights, providing drinking water connections, drainage connections, electricity supply etc., he purchased the plot in the venture believing the version of the opposite parties that they would develop the same. The complainant waited for several years anticipating development in the said venture as promised. Merely registering and handing over the possession of the plot to the complainant without developing the amenities as promised, is not an end to the contract, the contract ends when the opposite parties fulfill the promises made by them at the time of selling the plots to the purchasers. Therefore, the cause of action continues till the completion of amenities as per the approved plan and specifications.
16. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the plot on the representations of the opposite parties that they would develop the venture by providing amenities. When there was no development even after waiting for several years, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 10.08.2013 calling upon the opposite parties to develop the venture as per the approved layout and specifications and handover the possession of the plot to the complainant. Though notice was received by the opposite parties no reply whatsoever was given to the complainant stating the reasons for not developing the venture. The opposite parties nowhere stated that the sale consideration paid by the complainant is not inclusive of development charges. When the opposite parties failed to develop the venture as per the specifications and approved layout it is nothing but deficiency in rendering of service of particular standard, quality or grade. Such deficiencies or omissions are defined in sub-clause (ii) or clause (r) of Section 2(1) as unfair trade practice. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly observed that if the opposite parties are directed to develop the venture as promised it will add to the further litigation, as such the District Forum directed for refund of the amount with interest and costs.
17. Therefore, we do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal. Hence, the point framed at para No.9, supra, is answered accordingly in favour of the respondent/complainant.
In the result, the appeals F.A.Nos.134 to F.A.No.140 of 2016 are dismissed confirming the orders of the District Forum-II, dated 06.04.2016 in C.C.Nos.220, 229, 261, 221, 223, 264 and 222 of 2014. There is no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated: 25.04.2017 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER