Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Poosarla Rama Rao —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Ushodaya Real Estates & Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3626 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 15.5.2014 in Appeal No. 1294/2013 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 4.11.2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate
For the Respondents Nos.1 & 3:Mr. Sandeep Singh, Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.2 & 4: Nemo
IMPORTANT POINT
Failure to hand over possession of plots and executing sale deed in favour of complainants despite they received entire sale consideration, gave recurrent and continuing cause of action to complainants and that cause of action continued to subsist till date on which complaint came to be filed.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2 (g) & 21 (b) — Deficiency in service — Booking of Flat — Neither possession of plots delivered to them nor sale deed of plot executed in their favour — They came to know that plots allotted to them sold by respondents to other persons — HELD — Complainants that themselves sought condonation of delay of 89 days — Delay condoned subject to payment of Rs.5000 each as cost by complainants — Plots in question no more available — Complainants claimed monetary compensation from respondents —But no evidence led by them before District Forum to prove as to what market value of said plots on date complaints filed — It becomes imperative to remit matter back to concerned District Forum to given opportunity to parties to lead evidence to prove market value of plots in question as on date of filing of complaints — Quantum of compensation to which complainants entitled. (Paras 8 & 9)
Result: Revision disposed off.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating therein that dasti notice was tendered by him to respondent No. 2 but was refused by him. In view of the said affidavit, the respondent No. 2 is declared to have been duly served.
2. The complainants, who are brothers, booked separate plots of land with the respondent Ushodaya Real Estates and paid the sale consideration for the aforesaid plots in 60 installments commencing from 21.2.1994 and ending on 18.2.1999. Two separate plots, both measuring 248 sq. yds., were allotted to them. However, neither the possession of the plots was delivered to them nor was the sale deed of the plot executed in their favour. The case of the complainants is that on 31.8.2009, they came to know that the plots allotted to them had been sold by the respondents to other persons. Being aggrieved, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of two separate complaints, filed in November, 2011. The complainants also filed applications seeking condonation of delay of 89 days in filing the complaints.
3. The complaints were resisted by the respondents inter-alia on the ground that they were patently barred by limitation. It was submitted by the respondents that the draw of lots was held on 15.8.1999 which was attended by one of the complainants and it was decided in the meeting of the allottees that they would get the sale deed executed within three months from the said date. According to the respondents, the cause of action for filing of the complaints therefore, arose on 15.8.1999 or at best on expiry of three months from 15.8.1999.
4. The District Forum, vide its order dated 22.11.2013, dismissed the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaints and consequently also dismissed the complaints. Being aggrieved, the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals. The said appeals having been dismissed, the complainants are before this Commission by way of these two separate revisions petitions.
5. The only question which arises for consideration in these petitions is as to how much, if any, was the delay in filing the complaints. According to the complainants, the cause of action to file the complaints arose to them on 31.8.2009 when they visited the office of the Sub-Registrar and came to know that the plots in question had been transferred by the respondents to other persons.
6. It is an admitted position that the possession of the plots booked by the complainants was not delivered or even offered to them at any point of time. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, IV(2012) CPJ 12., where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in such a case the buyer has a recurrent cause for filing a complaint for non-delivery of possession of the plot. The complainants/petitioners therefore, had a recurrent cause of action, till either the possession was delivered to them or it was unequivocally refused by the respondents. The case of the complainants is that since they are based in a city different from the city in which the plots in question are situated, they could not regularly pursue the matter with the respondents and came to know of the subsequent transfer only when they visited the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar on 31.8.2009. There is no material on record to show that the respondents had written to the complainants, at any point of time, asking them to take possession of the plots allotted to them and get the sale deed of the said plots executed in their favour. The respondents having already received the entire sale consideration from the complainants, they had nothing to lose by retaining the possession of the plots allotted to the complainants except incurring expenses in connection with the maintenance of the plots and employing watch and ward staff to look after the said plots. Had the respondents issued a notice to
