State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mukkara Narasimhudu S/O Late ... vs M/S Narne Estate Pvt Ltd., Secunderabad on 4 February, 2010
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.1642 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.37 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM NALGONDA Between Mukkara Narasimhudu S/o late Pamuleti aged about 38 years, Occ: Physiotherapist R/o Flat No.301, Kalyana Avenue, G.K.Colony Sainikpuri Post, Secunderabad Appellant/ complainant A N D M/s Narne Estate Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, No.10, Gun Rock Enclave Secunderabad. Respondent/ opposite party Counsel for the Appellant Sri Ch.Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for the Respondent A.Satyavathi, QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
& SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER THURSDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TEN Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) *** The complainant filed the appeal being dissatisfied by the order passed by the District Forum, Nalgonda in C.C.No. 37 of 2007 whereby the opposite party was directed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant for Plot NO.33 (CP) in Block-II, Sector-IV, admeasuring 280 sq.yards in East City Venture situated at Bibinagar in Nalgonda District and in the alternative to execute sale deed in respect of the Plot No.88 in Block-G, Sector-V admeasuring 290 sq.yards situated in East City Venture at Bibinagar in Nalgonda District by collecting the extra amount of Rs.1500/- for extra extent of 10 sq.yards at the rate of 150/- per sq.yards and also pay to the complainant Rs.1500/- towards costs.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant paid an amount of Rs.4700/- on 20.1.1995 out of which Rs.4500/- was adjusted towards first instalment and Rs.200/- was paid towards membership charges. The remaining amount of Rs.33,000/- had to be paid in monthly installments @ Rs.750/- per month commencing from March 1995. The developmental charges have to be paid separately after the commencing fo the development works. The opposite party allotted the membership No.22337 and Plot No.79, in Sector-V, Block-BD admeasuring 250 sq.yards to the complainant.
Thereafter the opposite party changed the plot number and re-allotted plot no.41 in Sector IV, Block V admeasuring 280 sq.yards and for that he collected an extra amount for excess land of 30 sq.yads and also as the plot no.41 was the corner plot. The opposite party inspite of payment of all the instalments amounting to Rs.46,200/- as agreed along with developmental charges failed to register the plot in the name of the appellant.
The respondent vide its letter dated 16.10.2006 informed the appellant that the plot allotted to him was not ready for registration due to the technical reasons and instead of that plot they offered to allot another plot in the same sector and for the said purpose they demanded the appellant to pay Rs.14,000/- towards registration charges. The appellant after receipt of the said letter approached the respondent and informed that he has already paid the registration charges and requested the respondent to register the alternative plot no.33 (C), Block-II, Section IV in his name. When the respondents failed to register the sale deed, the appellant has got issued legal notice dated 19.03.2007 in response of which the respondent did neither give any reply nor did it execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.
The respondent resisted the claim contending that on the request of the appellant vide letter dated 17.5.1999 they changed the plot and re-allotted plot no.41 (corner plot) in Block-X admeasuring 280 sq.yards and requested the complainant to pay the extra amount for extra extent of 30 sq.yards. The cost of the land collected from the appellant and other members includes developmental charges and registration charges. On payment of developmental charges the appellant and other members would be entitled for the registration of the plots allotted to them. The appellant failed to clear off the dues towards the cost of land, developmental charges and registration charges and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. The respondent further submits that due to technical and legal problems they offered an alternative plot with similar physical features to the appellant subject to the payment of all the necessary dues and the appellant agreed to that offer vide his letter dated 18.1.2007. Accordingly the oppose party allotted plot no.33 in block-Ii, Sector V, East City, Bibinagar, Nalgonda District. As per the direction of DTCP certain changes were brought in the layout plan which resulted in realignment of plots in East City and due to the readjustment of plots, the plot allotted to the appellant was shelved and he was re-allotted a new plot bearing No.88 in Block-G at Sector V admeasuring 290 sq.yars and they are ready to register the plot in the name of the complainant if he is ready to pay the extra cost for extra extent of 10 sq.yards.
The appellant has filed his affidavit in support of his case and Exs.A1 to A24 were marked on his behalf.
On behalf of the respondent, Mr.N.Ranga Rao, the Chairman and Managing Director filed his affidavit and Exs.B1 to B39 were filed.
The grounds of appeal mainly deal with the contention of the appellant that there was no evidence to show that the allotted plot was shelved and that the alternate plot offered does not match the allotted plot in any respect. The appellant seeks the allotted plot and in the alternate a plot in the sector and with the similar type of facing. The appellant also seeks refund of Rs.40,000/- said to have been paid excessively and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from infirmity of misappreciation of fact or law?
The appellant joined a scheme in regard to sale of plot introduced by the respondent and paid an amount of Rs.37,500/- for a plot measuring 250 sq.yards payable in monthly instalments. The appellant paid an amount of Rs.4700/- on 20.1.1995 and the balance amount of Rs.33,000/- has to be paid at the rate of Rs.750/- per month from the month of March 1995. The appellant was also required to pay development charges after the commencement of the work. Statement of account dated 23.1.1995 indicates payment of Rs.4500/- and the balance due of Rs.33,000/-. The appellant contends that the respondent has allotted him membership no.22337 and plot no.79 in Sector V, Block-BD and thereafter he was allotted plot no.41 in sector IV Block-V admeasuring 280 sq.yards in lieu of the plot no.79 measuring 250 sq.yds and that the respondent collected extra amount of Rs.4,200/- for the extra 30 sq.yards. According to him on 10.08.2005 he has paid total sale consideration of Rs.46,200/- and development charges, extra amount for extra area, extra amount for corner plot and Rs.42,000/- towards development charges as also Rs.7988/- towards registration charges. The respondent issued letter dated 24.1.1995 allotting plot no.79 in Sector V Block-BD in favour of the appellant and by letter dated 6.3.1995 the appellant was informed that the respondent due to various constraints in re-marking and realignment of the plots, they have to readjust the plot allotment whereof plot no.61 in Sector V Block-BC with similar configuration and proximity to the allotted plot was made in favour of the appellant.
The appellant has paid Rs.750/- as seen from the provisional cash receipt dated 27.12.1995 and the said amount is reflected in receipt no.134580 dated 28.12.1995 whereunder the balance due from the appellant is shown as Rs.25,500/- and this amount has been paid till 22.10.1998 as seen from the receipts dated 13.12.1996 and 22.10.1998. The letter dated 29.4.1999 was addressed to the appellant informing him the development works in Sector V, Block BC wherein the plot allotted to the appellant, commenced from the month of March 1999 and the development works include bush clearance, marking of the plots, laying the roads, open drains, sewage lines, water lines, street lights and avenue plantation. The appellant was requested to remit Rs.1,000/- per month towards monthly instalment of development charges w.e.f., April 1999.
The appellant had contended that on 16.10.2006 the respondent had written a letter to him stating that the plot allotted him was not ready for registration due to technical reasons and offered an alternate plot of similar configuration in the same Sector for which registration charges of Rs.14,000/- was required to be paid by the appellant in response to which the appellant had informed the respondent that he had already paid the registration charges on 10.8.2005 and as such he need not pay any extra amount for registration charges and thereby requested the respondent to execute sale deed in respect of plot no.33 in Block-II, Sector-IV for which the respondent had sent a proposal to the appellant. It is true that the respondent had offered through letter dated 16.10.2006 an alternate plot of similar configuration in the same Sector citing the reason of technical terrain and other related impediments. Thus, the respondent offered to allot plot no.33 to the appellant and thereafter offered another plot bearing no.88 in the place of allotted plot no.33 citing the reason that DTCP has issued certain directions and in compliance of the said directions, lay out plan was prepared resulting the realignment of plot in East City and that the plot no.33 allotted to the appellant was shelved in the said realignment of plot. The plot bearing no.88 that was subsequently allotted was measuring 290 sq.yards and the respondent offered to execute sale deed in respect of the plot bearing no.88 which was measuring 10 sq.yads extra for which the appellant was required to pay extra cost.
The appellant has paid an amount of Rs.1,36,418/- til 19.1.2007. The respondent has charged developmental charges and registration charges and interest on the developmental charges and registration charges. Except stating that the respondent offered alternate plot due to technical and other problems, the problems styled as technical problems have not been explained nor what the other problems are that could be made as ground to offer the alternate plot. The appellant was constrained to accept the plot no.33 as offered by the respondent. However, the respondent has again offered alternate plot i.e. plot number 88 in Block g at Sector V admeasuring 290 sq.yards on the ground that DTCP has issued directions in view of which certain necessary changes were brought about in the layout plan resulting in realignment and readjustment of plots in East city whereof the plot number 33 allotted to the appellant was shelved. The respondent has not adduced any evidence to establish that the DTCP had issued directions and that the plots were realigned and readjusted. The respondent cannot at its whims go on changing the plots one after the other citing arbitrary and untenable reasons.
The appellant has claimed the refund of Rs.40,000/- which the respondent has claimed to have adjusted towards his outstanding dues pertaining to development charges and registration charges as demanded under letter dated 19th January,2007. In the first instance, the respondent allotted plot bearing number 79 measuring 250 sq.yds, thereafter plot bearing number 41 was allotted and subsequently the plot bearing number 33 was allotted . Ultimately, the respondent offered to allot the plot bearing number 88 in block G at Sector IV measuring 290 sq.yards.
The respondent claimed to have found the appellant due an amount of Rs.2000/- whereas the appellant has denied any due either in respect of the monthly instalments or development charges and other charges. According to the respondent, the sale consideration was split into 1.
Cost of the land, 2. Cost of development i.e., cost for providing infrastructural facilities like laying of tar roads, providing underground sewerage facility, providing electricity connection, protected water supply, all-round fencing etc., and 3. Prevalent registration charges as fixed by State Government of Andhra Pradesh. Demand for registration charges by a vendor from a vendee is unknown to the law. Usually, the vendee shall bear the registration charges and stamp duty at the time of effecting registration of the sale deed. The vendee does not pay the registration charges and stamp duty to the vendor as also the vendor is not concerned with the registration charges and stamp duty except in the case where he expressely undertakes to bear them.
The only obligation of the vendor is to execute sale deed and effect the registration of the sale deed before the competent authority.
The respondent had interestingly included the registration charges in the entire gamut of the sale consideration which is against the provisions of the transfer of property Act and Registration Act. The respondent has not only collected the registration charges from the appellant but also failed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant in respect of the plot no.33 that the respondent after series of changes effected in the allotment of plots ultimately allotted in favour of the appellant.
Therefore, the deficiency in service rendered by the respondent is manifest in the whole gamut of the act commencing from the time of allotment of plot bearing No.79 and culminating in extending its offer of plot bearing no.88 in lieu of the allotted plot bearing number 33 in the East City in Nalgonda District.
The appellant claimed for refund of the amount of Rs.42,000/- that has been said to have been unnecessarily paid to the respondent under the caption of development charges and registration charges which have been said to have been included in the amount of Rs.46,200/-. The respondent has contended that the cost of plot collected from the allottees was exclusive of the development charges and registration charges and the interest on delayed payment. The statement of account dated 23.1.1995, 13.12.1996, 22.10.1998, 30.09.2000, 20.11.2004, 10.11.2005 and 19.1.2007 have been furnished with the details of cost of plot, development charges, registration charges, interest due and other charges as also the amount paid by the respective date of statement and the amount paid at the time of issuing of the statement of account and also the amount the appellant is due. In the receipt dated 23.1.1995 the developmental charges, registration charges, interest have been shown nil while the balance due was Rs.33,000/- and it has come down to Rs.25,500/- by the receipt dated 28.12.1995 and subsequently it has been scaled down to Rs.16,500/- as seen from receipt dated 13.12.1996. The statement of account dated 22.10.1998 evidences payment of the entire amount of Rs.37,500/- whereof the development charges and registration charges have been kept nil. The statement of account dated 22.10.1998 prove to the effect that the appellant has paid the entire sale consideration excluding development charges, the respondent has issued statement of account dated 30.9.2000 wherein the cost of the plot for the first time is shown as Rs.46,200/- and development charges of Rs.42,000/- as also an amount of Rs.5,600/- towards registration charges and the sum of Rs.1,000/- paid by the appellant whereby the balance due has been shown as Rs.55,300/-.
The statement of account dated 28.10.2004 and 10.8.2005 would establish that the appellant has paid Rs.46,200/- towards cost of the plot and Rs.42,000/- towards development charges as also an amount of Rs.7,988/- towards registration charges. As aforesaid the respondent has no authority to claim registration charges from the appellant and in spite of the said fact the respondent has collected the registration charges which were enhanced to Rs.14,000/- as the statement of account dated 19.1.2007 includes whereunder the development charges of Rs.2,000/- was shown as due despite the fact that the entire development charges was fixed at Rs.42,000/- evident from the statement of account dated 30.11.2000. The respondent has collected further amount of Rs.13,000/- towards development charges and issued statement of account dated 10.8.2005 showing nil balance to be paid under the heads of cost of the plot and development charges.
The contention of the appellant that the respondent had promised to waive a sum of Rs.2,000/- under the head of developmental charges garners support from the endorsement to be waived made in the statement of account dated 19.1.2007. Thus the appellant has paid entire sale consideration, development charges as also registration charges to the respondents in respect of the plot measuring 280 sq.yards in East City in Nalgonda District. It is the obligation of the respondent to execute registered sale deed in respect of the plot bearing no.33 measuring 280 sq.yards which the respondent has neglected resulting the appellant suffering hardship and inconvenience.
In the circumstances, the District Forum has rightly held that the appellant is not due any amount nor is entitled to the refund of an amount of Rs.40,000/- that he has paid towards the development charges and registration charges. The direction in the impugned order to the effect that the respondent can execute registered sale deed in the name of the complainant in respect of the Plot bearing No.88 and collect a sum of Rs.1,500/- from the complainant is set aside while upholding the rest of the directions in the impugned order.
In the result the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order passed by the District forum. The respondent directed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the appellant in respect of plot bearing No.33 (CP) in Block II, Sector IV admeasuring 280 sq.yards in East City Venture at Bibinagar Nalgonda District and pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the appellant.
Sd/-
PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.04.02.2010 KMK*