Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Kumari D. Umabala and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
B. Laxmikantha Rao and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2893 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 02/06/2017 in Appeal No. 105/2014 of the State Commission Telangana)
Decided on 7.6.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Veeranjaneyulu K. Proxy counsel for Mr. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint for refund of money from Builder can be filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 3 and 24-A—Complaint—Maintainability—Purchase of flat—It was alleged in complaint that sanctioned plan of Apartment was not handed over despite repeated requests—District Forum partly allowed complaint and directed OPs jointly and severally to pay Rs.79,000/- to complainant along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.2,000/-—Petitioners have sold the third floor to complainant and as owner of property which was subjected to development agreement, petitioners must be in knowledge of fact that third floor was illegally constructed—When they were party to development agreement and have signed application forms for approval of construction plan, they are supposed to know approved plan by concerned Municipal Corporation, even though same was got approved by builder—Cause of action only arose when complainant received notice for demolition of his house—Then he got the offence compounded by paying due amount and therefore, cause of action continued till he paid amount to Municipal Corporation—Complaint is within limitation as main complaint is for refund of paid amount to Corporation—Case of complainant is very well covered under Consumer Protection Act 1986—Petitioners have cheated complainant by adopting unfair means—Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was very much maintainable—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 8 to 11)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Kumari D. Umabala & Anr. against the order dated 02.6.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.105 of 2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are the owners of flat No.303, 3rd floor, Krishna Kunjam Apartments, while the respondent No.1 is the complainant and respondent No.2 is the builder of the apartments. The petitioners sold the said flat No.303 on 3rd floor, Krishna Kunjam apartments to respondent No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 15.04.2002.
3. Complainant purchased flat on the third floor of the building constructed by the respondent No.2 (builder) for Rs.5,11,000/-. Possession was duly handed over to the complainant. It was alleged in the complaint that the sanctioned plan of the Apartment was not handed over despite repeated requests. In April, 2008, complainant received a demolition notice from authorities alleging illegal construction. Thereafter, after obtaining copy of the sanctioned plan from the authorities under RTI, complainant came to know that the opposite parties had obtained sanction for construction only upto 2nd floor. Complainant got illegal construction on 3rd floor regularised by paying Rs.79,000/- to the relevant authorities. The complainant then filed complaint seeking recovery of the amount paid from the opposite parties. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad, (in short ‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 17.01.2014 partly allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties No.1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay Rs.79,000/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.2,000/-.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2014, the opposite party Nos.2 & 4 preferred the appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the State Commission.
5. Hence the present revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in agreement condition No.3 it is clearly stated that the party of the second part i.e. the builder, shall construct the multistoried building on the said property with their funds after duly obtaining the permission from the competent authorities, Gram Panchayat/HUDA at their sole effort and funds and for the purposes the parties of the first pat shall assist in filling the forms and sign the forms and documents wherever it is necessary. It is further declared by both parties that parties of the first part is not at all responsible nor liable for taking permission and construction of the multistoried building according to the specification and for any deviation from the permission/sanction. It was stated that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the District Forum had erred in not considering that the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant for the alleged unauthorised construction of the Flat sold by the petitioners to the respondent in the year 2002, but the complaint was filed in the year 2011, after a long gap of 9 years and the said complaint was hit by the law of limitation. The State Commission further failed to appreciate that the District Forum had erred in not considering that the recovery of alleged amount spent/paid by the respondent No.1 to the Municipal Authorities in the year 2009 does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and instead of filing the complaint, the respondent No.1 should have filed a suit for recovery.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the material on record. It is admitted by the petitioners that the petitioners sold the flat on the third floor to the respondent No.1/complainant in the year 2002. When the complainant received the notice of demolition of his flat on the third floor, then he fo
