State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pruthivi Avenues Pvt Ltd vs Mr Y Alexander on 7 February, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. FA/258/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/09/2013 in Case No. CC/633/2012 of District Hyderabad) 1. Pruthivi Avenues Pvt Ltd Rep by its Managing Director D no 8 2 686 7 9 Road No 12 Banjara Hills Hyderabad ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mr y Alexander Son of Pushparaj Aged 41 years Occ Student Residence of Australia being rep by her GPA holder y Virginia Wife of Pushparaj aged about 67 years Occ Housewife Residence of Flat No 313Ramnagar Hyderabad ...........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 : 07 Feb 2018 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD F.A.No. 258 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.633 OF 2012 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I HYDEABAD Between Pruthivi Avenues Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director D.No.8-2-686/7/9, Road No.12 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Appellant/opposite party A N D Y.Alexander S/o Pushparaj Aged 41 years, Occ: Student R/o Australia being rep. by her GPA Holder Y.Virginia W/o Pushparaj, Aged about 67 yrs Occ: Housewife R/o Flat No.313, Block-C, Janapriya Apartments, Ramnagar Gundu Hyderabad Respondent/complainant F.A.No. 259 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.634 OF 2012 Between Pruthivi Avenues Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director D.No.8-2-686/7/9, Road No.12 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Appellant/opposite party A N D Ms V.Inezbethsheba W/o Christopher Aged about 52 years, Indian, Occ: Housewife R/o USA, being rep. by her GPA Holder Mr.Pushparaj, aged about 69 years, Occ: Retd. Employee R/o Flat No.313, Block-C, Janapriya Apartments, Ramnagar Gundu Hyderabad Respondent/complainant F.A.No. 260 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.634 OF 2012 Between Pruthivi Avenues Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director D.No.8-2-686/7/9, Road No.12 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Appellant/opposite party A N D Ms Y.Mounica W/o Pushparaj Aged about 31 years, Indian, Occ: Employee R/o Australia, being rep. by her GPA Holder Y.Yirginia W/o Pushparaj, aged about 61 years, Occ: Housewife R/o Flat No.313, Block-C, Janapriya Apartments, Ramnagar Gundu Hyderabad Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellant M/s V.Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Respondent M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates QUORUM : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT & SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) *** These appeals are preferred by opposite party Pruthvi Avenues Pvt Ltd., against the orders of the Dist. Forum on separate complaints directing it pay certain amounts with interest and costs .
2. Since these appeals are preferred by the very opposite party Pruthivi Avenues Pvt Ltd., against the orders of the Dist. Forum on the complaints filed by complainants pertaining to the same venture, and as common questions of fact and law are involved, we are of the opinion that all these appeals can be disposed of by a common order. F.A.No.258 of 2014 is taken as a lead case.
3 The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the opposite party started a venture by name " Bhuvi Nest" at Maisigandi Village, Amangal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District and offered to sell the open plots. The opposite party stated in its brochure that it has DTCP approval and the venue will be developed with Black Top Roads, Electric Lines, Water Lines, underground drainage system, avenue plantation etc. Being lured by its advertisement, the complainant agreed to purchase plot consisting of 200 sq.yareds in Aristocrat block and paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 01.09.2007 towards allotment and further paid 17 EMIs at Rs.6000/- for 17 months. Opposite party has issued allotment letter stating that it has allotted plot no.302. While so the complainant saw a news item in newspapers on 07.11.2009 wherein it is stated that the MD of the opposite party was arrested by police on the complaint that it is selling the assigned lands. Immediately the complainant visited the venture only to know that there is no such venture and the land is being cultivated by some other persons and they stated that they have not sold their land to any person. When questioned about the same with the opposite party, it assured that it is under the process within a short period they will develop the land and all the disputes will be settled soon and requested the complainant to bear with them. The complainant informed the opposite party that he will not pay further EMIS till the disputes with regard to the title are settled. Likewise, the opposite party went on postponing the development works and also the title dispute. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party the complainant demanded refund of the amount paid by him but the opposite party neither refunded the amount nor developed the site. Finally in the month of September 2011 the opposite party has admitted that it is no more the owner of the venture and that they are unable to take possession and develop the site as per the agreement and requested the complainant to take the plot in another venture. Complainant refused to take plot in another venture and demanded for refund the amount. Hence, the complaint praying to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.1,32,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from 01.09.2007 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.40,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
4. The opposite party resisted the case contending that it is false and incorrect to state that the Managing director opposite party was arrested by the Police for selling the assigned land. Mr.M.Venkateswara Rao, whose name was referred in Sakshi News Paper dated 07.10.2009 has nothing to do with the opposite party. He is neither a Director nor the Managing director of the opposite party at any point of time. The complainant never visited the office of opposite party enquiring about the ownership and the development of the layout. No specific dates were mentioned when the complainant visited the office of the opposite party. The opposite party got a clear title for " Pruthvi Pyramid City" layout land situated at Sy.No.260/41 and 260/42 of Mysigandi Gram Panchayat, H/o Kadthal, Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist. The opposite party has got clear title for the entire layout land of Ac.31.215 by way of slae deeds executed in their favour. For the purpose of granting approval from DTCP the opposite party got necessary approvals form RDO, Mahabubnagar for the conversion of agricultural land into non agricultural purpose. The alternative Disputes Redressal Cell at Civil Supplies Department is not a court of law. They have no authority to pass any orders and already the opposite party executed several sale deeds to their customers in the said venture whoever paid the sale consideration amount. Further clause 13 of the Application Form, any member can seek for the cancellation but such request must be made during the scheme period. On such request, 50% of the amount will be paid to the member only after competition of the scheme period. According to clause No.15 of the Application Form, the opposite party is entitled to forfeit the amount of a member who commits default in payment of 3 consecutive installments as such the complainant being a defaulter is not entitled for any amount. The complainant never sent a letter nor any legal notice before filing the complaint explaining the circumstances under which he failed to pay the balance amount. Hence, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In proof of the case of the complainant, the GPA holder has filed her evidence affidavit and got Exs.A1 to A26 marked. On behalf of the opposite party the authorized signatory has filed his evidence affidavit and no documents have been filed. The appellant during the course of pending of the appeal filed FAIA 437 of 2014 by filing certain documents to be marked and the said petition was allowed and marked the documents as Exs.B1 to B9.
6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.633 of 2012 by orders dated 30.09.2013 directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,32,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 02.09.2009 till 15.06.2012 and with interest @ 9% per annum from 16.06.2012 till realization together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite party preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The District Forum failed to see that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation that the opposite party got DTCP layout for the entire layout area of Ac.31.215. The complainant is a defaulter and not paid the total sale consideration amount. As per clause 13 of the Application Form any member can seek for cancellation during the scheme period and on such request only 50% of the amount will be paid after completion of the scheme. As per clause 15 of the application form, the opposite party is entitled to forfeit the amount of any member who commits default in payment of 3 consecutive installments. There is no deficiency in the service rendered by the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the District Forum.
8. Counsel for both parties present and were heard. The counsel for the appellant/opposite party filed its common written arguments.
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. The appellant floated venture in the name and style of Bhuvi Nest at Maisigandi Village, Amangal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District and payment of Rs1,32,000/- was made by respondent towards part of cost of the plot out of total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- in the venture as also allotment of a plot vide letter dated 03.09.2007 by the appellant has not been disputed. The appellant had sold the plot assuring the respondent that they had DTCP approval and that they would develop the venture with Black Top Roads, Electric lines, water lines, underground drainage system, avenue plantation etc.. The case of the respondent is that he saw a news item in newspapers dated 07.10.2009 wherein the Managing Director of the opposite party was arrested by police on the complaint that they are selling the assigned lands as evidenced vide Ex.A26. After seeing the said news item the respondent visited the venture where he found that the farmers were cultivating the said lands and further there are no development works as mentioned in the brochure of the opposite party. When the respondent questioned with the farmers about the same they informed that they have not sold any lands to anyone. Therefore, the respondent sought for refund of the amount from the appellant but the appellant failed to pay the same.
11. On the other hand the appellant contended that the complainant had paid only a partial sum of Rs.1,32,000/- only by 02.09.2009 out of Rs.3,00,000/- and subsequently the complainant committed default in payment of further EMIs. It is further contended by the appellant that it had filed certain documents which are marked during the course of appeal as Exs.B1 to B9 which establish that the opposite party got approval for the layout. The appellant had got proper title and approval from competent authorities and developed the venture "Bhuvi Nest" and also executed several sale deeds to their members.
12. Admittedly, the appellant had not obtained layout approval by the time of issuing application form at the time of commencement of the scheme. The appellant stated to have been obtained layout sanction from the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning in the month of September 2009. The appellant cannot stretch the protection cover provided by Clauses 13 and 15 of the terms of the Application Form as to its liability that if any member cancels his allotment he would get only 50% of the amount paid by him and that if any member commits default in payment of 3 consecutive installments the appellant is entitled to forfeit the amount paid by the member. But these clauses are not applicable to the respondent because the appellant had not carried out development work as promised. The development works in the venture includes Black Top Roads, Electric Lines, Water Lines Underground Drainage System and Avenue Plantation etc. The appellant had not filed any evidence such as photos to show that the venture was commenced and that they are laying the blacktop roads, electric lines, water lines underground drainage system etc. Mere filing of a DTCP approvals that too during the pendency of the appeal does not show its bonafides that the venture was developed and also that they have executed several sale deeds to their members. The appellant did not file any sale deed of any member that it had registered the sale deed of the plot which is fully developed one. The appellant failed to file photographs to establish the case of the appellant that they have developed the project as promised and the respondent opted to seek refund of the amount. The respondent had not opted to pay the balance amount on the premise that the plot and the venture thereof is not developed.
13. Before filing the complaint in the District Forum the respondent approached Alternate Consumer Dispute Redressal Cell complaining that he came to know from the newspapers that the lands offered for sale by the appellant are of assigned lands and hence he stopped payment of further amount and requested to refund of the amount already paid. But the appellant refused to refund the same and instead offered the plots in another venture which is not accepted by the respondent. The Alternate Consumer Dispute Redressal Cell in its proceedings dated 11.11.2011 recorded as follows:
Both complainant and opposite party (Legal Adviser) present. Opposite party has requested for one week time. Hence, this Cell decided to call again on 19.11.2011.
31.12.2011 The complainant has informed that the representative of Pruthvi Avenue Pvt Ltd., has shown another plot which is not the same as they have promised. But the complainant was not willing to take the other plot, hence, this complainant asked for refund of the amount paid. The legal advisor of the Op has given a letter stating that the Director is on tour and expected in the last week of January 2012. The complainant has not accepted for wait for one more month as they have already taken (2) months. Hence, the complainant wants to go to District Forum.
14. From the above it is clear that the venture was not developed by the appellant and for that the appellant sought for one week time and offered another plot which is not accepted by the respondent and requested for refund of the amount. When the respondent lost confidence on the appellant, he sought for refund of the amount which is reasonable and the appellant is liable for the refund the amount paid by him.
15. We do not see any irregularly or illegality in appreciation of evidence by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal. In the circumstances discussed supra, we answer the point framed for consideration in paragraph No.9, above in favour of the respondent/complainant and against the appellant/opposite party.
In the result this appeal F.A.No.258 of 2014 and also the appeals F.a.No.259 and F.A.No.260 of 2014 are dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER 07.02.2018 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED NIL EXHIBITS MARKED F.A.Nos.258, 259 and 260 of 2014 For complainant NIL For opposite party Ex.B1 Copy of LPNo.222/2008/HRO/H2 dt.06.09.2008 Ex.B2 Copy of LP No.223/2008/HRO/H2 dt.10.09.2008 Ex.B3 Copy of LP No.227/2008/HRO/H2 dt.15.09.2008 Ex.B4 Copy of LP No.229/2008/HRO/H2 dt.23.09.2008 Ex.B5 Copy of LP No.232/2008/HRO/H2 dt.26.09.2008 Ex.B6 Copy of LP No.236/2008/HRO/H2 dt.29.09.2008 Ex.B7 Copy of LP No.240/2008/HRO/H2 dt.01.09.2008 Ex.B8 Application From Ex.B9 Layout copy PRESIDENT MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER