AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Agrawal, J. President Member
By these three Revision Petitions, the Original Complainants (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners) call in question the legality and correctness of a common Order dated 10.10.2013, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeals No. 715/2012, 716/2012 and 717/2012 respectively. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioners herein against three different Orders, all dated 31.07.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Complaint Cases No. 276/2008, 277/2008 and 292/2008 respectively. By the said Orders, the District Commission held that the Opposite Parties/Respondents had received the entire sale consideration but not registered the sale deed in the name of the Petitioners and, therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties/Respondents. Consequently, the District allowed the Complaints, preferred by the Petitioners herein, and directed as under:
RP/1064/2014
“In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- received by them along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till the realization and also direct to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and further direct to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards costs. Time for compliance: 40 days from the date of receipt of this order.”
RP/1065/2014
“In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,15,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony harassment and a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards costs. Time for compliance: 40 days from the date of receipt of this order.”
RP/1066/2014
“In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.70,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards costs. Time for compliance: 40 days from the date of receipt of this order.”
The issue involved and the facts in all the Cases are similar vis-à-vis the cause of action, allegations leveled by the Petitioners and the reliefs prayed for in the Complaints and granted by the District Commission and upheld by the State Commission by the common Impugned Order. Accordingly, all the Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 1064 of 2014 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated therein are referred to and dealt with in this Order.
The facts, in brief, as culled out from Revision Petition No. 1064 of 2014, are that on the representations made by the Opposite Parties/Respondents herein that they were pioneer in the field of real estate having offices at several places, including California and Florida, USA, and had floated a Joint Venture/Scheme near Bangalore International Airport, Bangalore, wherein plots were to be sold to the prospective buyers, and whoever would book the plot would get a Gold Chain, Ray Ban Glasses and a Diamond Necklace, the Petitioner became a Member in the said Joint Venture/Scheme sometime in the year 1996 and booked a plot in the Layout of Indra Sai Enclave, Devanahalli, Near Bangalore International Airport, Bangalore and also entered into Sale Agreement with the Opposite Parties/Respondents sometime in the year 1998. After paying certain installments, the Petitioner was declared as a lucky winner in the draw held by the Opposite Parties/Respondents herein and as per the terms and conditions the future installments were not required to be paid by the Petitioner. As directed by the Opposite Parties/Respondents, the Petitioner paid certain amount, including the stamp duty and registration charges, duly acknowledged by the Opposite Parties/Respondents in the Passbook issued to the Petitioner. Despite the assurance given that the possession of the plot would be given and the registration of the plot would be done within 45 to 60 days from the date of payment, the same was not done by the Opposite Parties/Respondents on one pretext or the other. As the Opposite Parties/Respondents were protracting the matter without any rhyme or reason and there was no development in the said Layout, e.g. there were no roads, drainage system, water, electricity etc., the Petitioner filed the afore-noted Complaint before the District Commission, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties/Respondents on the aforesaid counts and praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties/Respondents to jointly and severally execute and register the sale deed in his favour in respect of plot booked in the Layout of Indra Sai Enclave, Devanahalli, Near Bangalore International Airport, Bangalore OR in the alternative direct them to pay the compensation equivalent to the prevailing market value of the above said plot, compensation for mental agony and costs.
Upon notice, the Opposite Parties/Respondents contested the Complaint by filing their Written Version. While denying the allegations leveled against them in the Complaint, it was inter alia stated by the Opposite Parties/Respondents that the Complaint was barred by limitation; the Petitioner did not pay the installments regularly and, therefore, the Opposite Parties/Respondents had a right to terminate his membership and forfeit the amount paid but, as per the request made by the Petitioner, two cheques in the total sum of Rs.1,75,000/- were issued in his favour, which he received but did not encash and filed the afore-noted Complaint before the District Commission with malafide intentions; the Opposite Parties/Respondents never executed any document/agreement in favour of the Petitioner; it was not correct that the Joint Venture/Scheme was not developed by the Opposite Parties/Respondents; the letter dated 24.11.2003 filed by the Petitioner before the District Commission, wherein it was stated that the Opposite Parties/Respondents had received the entire amount and it was promised that the plot would be registered within 45 to 60 days, was fabricated one; and further denying the allegation that the Petitioner had been insisted by the Opposite Parties/Respondents for resale of certain plots and resultant booking of the air tickets by the Opposite Parties/Respondents is false and the Opposite Parties/Respondents had not booked any air ticket, it was stated by the Opposite Parties/Respondents that the Complaint deserved to be dismissed.
More or less, same are the facts in other Revision Petitions, except for some variation in the amount paid by the Petitioners in Revision Petitions No. 1065 of 2014 and 1066 of 2014; it was not the case of the Petitioners therein that they had been declared lucky winner in the draw held by the Opposite Parties/Respondents; and the stand taken by the Opposite Parties/Respondents in the Written Version filed in the said Revision Petitions that the plot allotted to the Petitioners in the said Cases was cancelled as the Government had declared the said area as Agricultural Zone.
On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the Parties and the material available on record, as noted above, the District Commission in all the Cases came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties/Respondents, inasmuch as they had received either the entire or major sale consideration of the plots booked by the Petitioners but not registered the sale deed in their favour and, therefore, the cause of action continued and the Complaints filed by them were not barred by limitation. The Petitioners herein and the Opposite Parties/Respondents herein had not filed any document before the District Commission, showing that the Opposite Parties/Respondents were holding any plots to register in favour of the Petitioners. Consequently, the District Commission allowed the Complaints in part and directed the directions as reproduced above in Para-1 of this Order.
Feeling aggrieved with the Orders passed by the District Commission, the Petitioners unsuccessfully carried the matter before the State Commission by filing their respective Appeals. The State Commission vide the common Impugned Order dismissed all the three Appeals, preferred by the Petitioners, and upheld the Orders passed by the District Commission, allowing the Complaints in part. Hence, the present Revision Petitions by the Petitioners, reiterating the prayers made in the Complaints.
The main grounds taken by the Petitioners in the Revision Petitions are that the conclusion of the State Commission is perverse, inasmuch as the State Commission has failed to consider the various grounds taken in the Appeals and has also failed to appreciate the documents filed; there is no discussion of various submissions made during oral arguments and written arguments, submitted by the Petitioners (Appellants in the Appeals) and, therefore, the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission is liable to be quashed and set aside; in the absence of any document/evidence filed by the Opposite Parties/Respondents, the State Commission has wrongly held that the land of the Layout was declared as agricultural land and the disputed plots were not available with them; and the State Commission has not considered the documents filed by the Petitioners that the Opposite Parties/Respondents have executed the registered sale deed of another plot in the same Layout in favour of another person.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material available on record, including the Written Submissions filed by learned Counsel for the Parties.
As regards the submission of the Petitioners that the State Commission has failed to consider the grounds raised in the Appeals and the documents filed and did not consider the submissions made by them during oral arguments and written arguments submitted by them and has wrongly held that the land of the Layout was declared as agricultural land and the disputed plots were not available with them, we find that the Petitioners have not filed before this Commission a copy of the Appeals and the documents filed therewith and in the absence of the same we are unable to comprehend what grounds raised in the Appeals and the documents filed were not considered by the State Commission. However, in this regard we would like to refer the Written Submissions, which are on identical lines, filed by the Petitioners in these Revision Petitions. Para-3 of the Written Submissions filed by the Petitioner in Revision Petition No. 1064 of 2014 reads as under:
“3. The learned Consumer Forum, Hyderabad has passed the erroneous order without appreciating the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner. The respondents were floated layout scheme at Devnalli, Bangalore near international airport. The respondents given wide publicity and floated scheme with the attraction to the various consumers offering Gold Chain or Ray Ban free goggle and further agreed for first 100 lucky customers weill gifted diamond necklace worth Rs.1 Lac. The draw intimation/letter and the scheme details, instalment condition, layout development photographs and letter dated 02.04.2002 [Pg. No. 51 to 58]. Those documents are sufficient to prove that the total cost of the unit/plot of Rs.94,500/-, the petitioner was selected in draw and as per demand of the respondents, the petitioner has paid Rs.37,000/- as registration charges and BIAPPA charges. Thus, the complainant has paid total amount of Rs.1,31,500/-.
A perusal of the Orders passed by the District Commission shows that it has nowhere been denied that the Petitioners had not deposited the amounts directed to be paid to them and what has been stated by them relating to floating of the Joint Venture/Scheme as also its terms and conditions, wherein aforesaid free gifts were also promised, was wrong or incorrect. The District Commission could have issued the aforesaid directions only after appreciation of all the material placed before it, including the aforesaid documents, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the District Commission had not considered the documents filed before it. The State Commission on the basis of material placed before it by the Parties has also affirmed the Orders passed by the District Commission and in such a situation it cannot be said that the submissions/documents filed by the Petitioners were not considered by the Fora below while adjudicating upon the matter.
Further, even if the Opposite Parties/Respondents have executed a registered sale deed in respect of a plot in the same Layout in favour of other person, a perusal of the Orders passed by the District Commission show that both the Parties, including the Petitioners herein, had not filed any document before the District Commission, showing that the Opposite Parties/Respondents were holding any plots to register in their favour. Though the Opposite Parties/Respondents ought to have filed the necessary documents in this behalf before the Fora below but that was not done by them. In such a situation, the Petitioners could have filed the relevant documents in order to rebut the stand taken by the Opposite Parties/Respondents and showing that the Opposite Parties/Respondents had the plots to register in their favour but they too did not do so, as recorded by the District Commission in its Orders. In view of the said peculiar facts and circumstances of the Cases, the District Commission had rightly allowed the Complaints, preferred by the Petitioners herein, in part and directed for refund of the amounts paid by them with 9% interest p.a., instead of acceding to their alternate prayer for grant of prevailing market value of the plots.
In support of their case, the Petitioners have relied upon the Cases of Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. Vs. Tej Refrigeration Industries, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (NC), Jankalyan Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. Vinod Mohite, III (2012) CPJ 392 (NC), Municipal Board, Dholpur Vs. Naresh Gupta, I (2013) CPJ 681 (NC), Jaipur Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Mahesh Chandra Gupta, Revision Petition No. 112 of 2017, decided by this Commission on 02.01.2019. The said Cases are on the issues of delay, continuation of cause of action, allotment of alternate plot if same plot is not available, cancellation of plot without any cogent and plausible reasons, and demand of current market rate by the Development Authority. By the Orders passed by the Fora below, the said issues are either decided in favour of the Petitioners or not applicable in the present Cases. None of the Cases relied upon by the Petitioners are on the issue that if the Developer/Builder is unable to give possession of the plot/flat booked by a person for any reason, then the said person has to be necessarily compensated with the market value of the plot allotted to him/her and not the refund of the amount with interest, as has been done by the Fora below in the present cases.
In view of what has been stated above, the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission does not require any interference by this Commission in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction. The Revision Petitions are, therefore, dismissed.