AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Shreesha, J
Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 23.01.2012 in First Appeal No. 1171 of 2009 against Consumer Complaint No.997 of 2008, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission though has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Hyderabad (for short "the District Forum") but modified the order and directed for refund of the amount paid by the Complainant.
The brief facts as stated in the Complaint are, that the Complainant purchased Plot No.225 admeasuring 225 sq. yd. in Sy.No.218/4 and 218/5 in Central Park Phase No. II at Kondapur Village Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on 31.07.2001 for a total consideration of ₹4,70,250/-. It was stated that the Complainant had paid the entire sale consideration by 25.02.2002. While so, the Complainant was informed that the subject Plot in phase-II was declared as ceiling surplus land by the ULC Authorities on 09.06.2007 and thereafter vide letter dated 01.11.2007, the Complainant was informed by the Opposite Party that the allotment of Plot in his favour was cancelled on the ground that he had shown no interest in clearing the dues in spite of reminders. On 27.11.2007, the Complainant addressed a letter to the Opposite Party that the cancellation of the allotment of Plot was unilateral and that the Opposite Party failed to obtain final approval of layout from HUDA and clearance from ULC Authorities and demanded the Opposite Party to revoke the cancellation of Plot but there was no response. Hence, this Complaint seeking the following reliefs:
"1. To execute and register a regular sale deed pertaining to plot NO. 225 admeasuring 225 sq. yds in Central Park II venture situated in Koudapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the favour of the Complainant without demanding any further amount.
to Pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards inconvenience hardhip, mental agony. To pay Costs of Rs.25,000/- and pass such other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble District Consumer Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
The Opposite Party filed their counter stating that the Complainant had committed defaults in paying the installments and despite repeated requests and correspondence through letters, the Complainant failed to pay the additional development, registration, maintenance and ULC charges and therefore a final reminder on 09.06.2007, was issued together with two final notices dated 04.07.2007 and 10.07.2007 requesting the Complainant to pay the dues payable by him, but there was no response and hence vide letter dated 01.11.2007 the Opposite Party was forced to cancel the Plot and therefore no deficiency of service can be attributed to him.
Based on the evidence adduced, the District Forum allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Party to execute the Sale Deed in respect of Plot No.225 together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Party preferred First Appeal No. 1171 of 2009 before the State Commission, which allowed in part and modified the order of the District Forum directing the Opposite Party to refund ₹4,96,900/- paid by the Complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the dates of respective payments till the date of realization together with compensation of ₹50,000/- and costs of ₹10,000/-.
Learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that he had filed the evidence of sale deeds which have been executed by the Respondent pertaining to that part of the disputed lands. It is seen from the record that vide order dated 20.10.2016 this Commission has allowed the I.A.No.5282 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner and taken on record the certified copy of the sale deeds pertaining to the same survey numbers. On 10.10.2018, the Petitioner who had appeared before this Commission submitted that Plot No.224, which is in the name of one Heera N. Aggarwal has been registered by the Opposite Party and that his Plot is the neighbouring Plot No.225 and therefore the question of any suit pending in the Civil Court on account of which the registration cannot be done does not arise.
On 05.02.2019, on a pointed query by the Bench, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent sought for some time. The request was acceded to an the matter was posted to 07.02.2019 and heard finally.
It is pertinent to note that the Revision Petitioner herein has filed Ex.P3, the registration extract of Sale No.15473/2006 dated 28.07.2006 executed by the Respondent herein in favour of Smt Heera N.Aggarwal registered in the office of Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Ranga Reddy District in respect of Plot No.224 admeasuring 235 sq.yds and forming part of 'Central Park Phase-II' Layout approved by HUDA in Sy.No.218/5. This distinctly evidences that the neighbouring Plot in the same site and Sy.No. has been registered by the Respondent.
In the absence of any documentary evidence by way of rebuttal to the contentions of the Petitioner herein that Plot No.224 was registered in the name of Smt Heera N.Aggarwal and also having regard to the fact that the finding and the observations made by the State Commission against the Respondent herein with respect to the deficiency of service against the Respondent has attained finality and as they did not prefer any Revision Petition before this Commission, we are of the considered view that the State Commission has erred in awarding refund of the amount paid. Hence, we allow this Revision Petition and set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum.
In the result this Revision Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- with the afore-noted directions. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the compensation amount will be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-