AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vide this order, I propose to dispose off the revision petition no. 1747 of 2017 filed by the petitioners / complainants against the order of the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad ( in short the State Commission) dated 23.01.2017 passed in Appeal No. 783 of 2013 filed by the respondents against the order of the District Forum dated 24.06.2013 in CC No.933 of 2010.
Another revision petition no. 1748 of 2017 is also filed by the petitioners / complainants against the order of Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad ( in short the State Commission) dated 23.01.2017 passed in Appeal No. 28 of 2014 filed by the petitioners/ complainants against the order of the District Forum dated 24.06.2013 in CC No.933 of 2010.
The brief facts of the case are that petitioner no.1 i.e. Sri. N. Sriramakrishna purchased a plot for a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- from the opposite parties in Gold Cost Venture, Hyderabad. He initially made payment of sum of Rs.5000/- on 10.10.2016 and Rs.61,000/- on 15.10.2006 and was issued a pass-book no. 7274. He was required to deposit monthly EMIs for 30 months. As per the complaint, following instalments were paid by complainant no.1 on various dates
Date
Amount (Rs.)
05.02.2007
75,000.00
12.04.2007
19,700.00
12.05.2007
19,700.00
29.06.2007
19,700.00
26.08.2007
19,700.00
14.10.2007
39,400.00
Total 1,93,200.00
Petitioner no.1 paid total sum of Rs.2,59,200/- to the respondents. Case of the complainant in the complaint itself was that due to some financial constraints, complainant no.1 / N. Sriramakrishna found himself unable to pay the subsequent EMIs and, therefore, he entered into an agreement with complainant no.2, namely, G.Ramakrishna Rao, who allegedly accepted to make the payments of the subject plot on transfer of subject plot in his name. Case of the complainants was that they applied for said transfer of the plot in the name of G.Ramakrishna Rao and also repeatedly sent letters to the respondents. Respondents did not pay any heed to their request and did not transfer the subject plot in favour of G.Ramakrishna Rao. Since their request for transfer of plot in favour of G. Ramakrishna Rao was pending with respondents, the complainants stopped making the payment of EMIs to the respondents. Their last payment was in October 2007. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed to refund the deposited amount with interest. The complainants also claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. They alleged that said deficiency in service relate to failure of the respondents to transfer the subject plot in favour of G.Ramakrishna Rao, who was complainant no.2 in the complaint.
The preliminary objection taken by the respondents before the District forum was that complaint was barred by limitation and that complainants are not the consumers. They also alleged that there was no deficiency in service on their part since it was complainant no.1 who had defaulted in making the payment of the instalments as per the terms of the agreement and subsequently not ready to pay the transfer charges. They also took the plea that they never received any request from the allottee i.e. complainant no.1 for transfer of plot in the name of any other person. However, the respondents offer to register the plot in the name of complainant no.1 if he makes the payment of the balance money.
The parties led their evidences and after hearing the arguments, the District Forum reached to the conclusion that complaint was not barred by limitation in view of the fact that respondents had offered to register plot in the name of complainant no.1 on payment of the balance money. The District Forum directed to pay the interest on the deposited amount but did not direct refund of the deposited amount and dismissed the rest of the claim of the complainants.
Aggrieved by this order, both complainants and respondents filed their respective appeals before the State Commission. The complainants challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission in FA No. 28 of 2014 on the sole ground that District Forum had only directed the payment of interest but not ordered for refund of the deposited amount. The respondents, however, challenged the order of the District Forum in FA No. 783 of 2013 on the ground that it was complainant no.1 who had defaulted in making the balance amount as per the terms of the contract and that they were ready and willing to execute the registered sale deed of the plot in favour of complainant no.1 on payment of balance amount of Rs.2,68,848/- with penal charges. While disposing off both the appeals, the State Commission observed as under :
"Now coming back to the facts of the case, the opposite parties, under their Memorandum of Appeal in F.A.no.783/2013 and also in the written arguments, in an unequivocal terms have expressed their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract by way of executing registered Sale Deed on receipt of the balance payment but demanded penal charges, administrative expenses, related fees etc. But it is to be seen that they didn't respond to the repeated requests made by the complainants to transfer the deal from the name of the complainant no.1 to the name of the complainant no.2. They have also failed to refund back the part sale consideration received from the complainant no.1. This fact certainly exhibits negligence amounting to deficiency in service on their part. At the same time it is also to be noted that even the complainant no.1 has admittedly failed to make payment of the installments in terms of the contract. In this circumstance, we hold that, it is a case of contributory negligence. In view of the readiness and willingness expressed by the opposite parties and in the given circumstances we deem it just, proper and expedient to direct the opposite parties to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,68,848/- from the complainant no.2 and execute the registered Sale Deed of the plot in question on his name by transferring membership of the scheme from the name of the complainant no.1, to meet the ends of justice and equity. For this direction, in our view, their cannot be any valid reason for complainant no.2 to refuse it in view of his consistent request all through to get the plot registered on his name."
This order of the State Commission is impugned before me by the complainants on the ground that complainants had never wanted the plot and their prayer in the complaint was for refund of the money and, therefore, findings in the impugned order whereby respondents were directed to transfer the plot in the name of complainant no.2 - G. Ramakrishna Rao on payment of balance sum of Rs.2,68,848/- by him. It is submitted that said findings are perverse, illegal and against the canon of justice.
I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
Admittedly, the plot was allotted in favour of complainant no.1-N. Sriramakrishna and till date it remains in his name and there is no transfer of membership from him in favour of any other person. Admittedly, he made no payment towards the instalments as per the terms and conditions beyond the period October, 2007. The EMIs were to be completed within 30 months starting from February 2007 which the complainant no. - N.Sriramakrishna, registered allottee of the plot, had failed to do so.
On these facts, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents more so when in their written version they had offered to register the plot in the name of complainant no.1 on payment of balance money alongwith penal charges. Complainant no.1 did not opt for that and sought only refund. Before this Commission also, he is seeking refund.
The argument that since they had applied for transfer of plot in the name of complainant no.2-G. Ramakrishna Rao and it was not transferred by the respondent in his name,has no merit. The application dated 08.10.2007, on which the petitioners state is the application seeking transfer of plot in the name of complainant no.2 -G. Ramakrishna Rao, is the application which was moved by petitioner no.2 - G.Ramakrishna Rao and not by complainant no.1 - N.Sriramakrishna, who was the allottee. When there is no request from registered allottee to transfer the plot to some other person, it cannot be said that respondents by not acceding the request of complainant no. 2 - G.Ramakrishna Rao in any way had violated the terms and conditions of the agreement with complainant no.1- N.Sriramakrishna Rao. The subsequent reminders were again not sent by complainant no.1 - N.Sriramakrishna, the allottee of the subject plot, but by complainant no.2-G.Ramakrishna Rao, who was stranger to the agreement. There is certainly no deficiency on the part of the respondents. There is no privity of contract between the respondents and complainant no.2. He is a stranger to the agreement between complainant no.1 and respondents. He, therefore, cannot be termed as 'consumer' of respondents. It is surprising that when the entire case of the complainants rests on the fact that respondents failed to transfer the plot in the name of complainant no.2-G.Ramakrishna Rao, they are challenging the directions of the State Commission in the impugned order to transfer the plot in the name of complainant no.2-G.Ramakrishna Rao on payment of balance consideration. Even the penalty was waived.
Since the petitioner no.1- N.Sriramakrishna does not want the plot and only prays for refund, impugned order is set aside and it is directed that deposited money shall be refunded to petitioner no.1-N.Sriramakrishna by way of demand draft alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its payment.
With these directions, both the revision petitions are disposed off.