Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
D. Appa Rao, President and M. Shreesha, Member
MD. KURSHEED BEGUM - Appellant
Versus
KIRAN KRISHNA REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. - Respondent
F.A. 797, 794 of 2008
Decided on : 13-04-2011
M/s. S.K. Masthan Vali, Advocate, for the Appellant; M/s. V.G.S. Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is the entitlement to interest as damages for mental pain and agony in cases of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in real estate disputes.
Headnote:
specific performance - real estate dispute - Faquir Chand Gulati v. Uppal Agencies (2008) 3 CPJ 48 (SC), DDA v. Krishnan Lal Nadrayog (2010) 4 CPJ 7 - The court discussed the agreement for sale of house plots, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, jurisdiction of the forum, and the entitlement to interest and compensation. The court emphasized the need for approval of ventures, the obligation to execute sale deeds, and the entitlement to interest as damages for mental pain and agony.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant entered into an agreement to purchase a house plot from the opposite party. The opposite party failed to allot the plot, changed allotment without approval, and did not execute the sale deed. The complainant sought refund of the consideration paid under the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite party's actions amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It held that the forum had jurisdiction to entertain the relief of specific performance and that the complaint was within the time limit. The court also determined the entitlement to interest and compensation.
Issues: The issues involved the deficiency in service, jurisdiction of the forum, and the entitlement to interest and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite party's failure to obtain approval for the venture and execute sale deeds constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It emphasized the forum's jurisdiction and the entitlement to interest as damages for mental pain and agony.
Final Decision: The appeal by the complainant was dismissed, and the appeal by the opposite party was allowed in part. The court modified the order of the forum, directing the opposite party to refund the consideration with interest at 15% p.a. from a specified date.
ORDER
D. Appa Rao, President - These cross appeals are preferred one by the complainant F.A. 797/2008 against inadequacy of compensation while the opposite party preferred F.A. 794/2008 against very granting of compensation.
2. The parties are described as arrayed in the complaint in order to avoid confusion in narrating the facts.
3. The case of the complainant in brief is that in the venture floated by the opposite party for sale of house plots she had agreed to purchase 300 sq.yds for Rs. 84,480 in 60 instalments under agreement dated 19.8.1994. She had promptly paid the instalments including membership fee of Rs. 5,000. Originally plot No. 35 was allotted and later by its communication allotment of plots were changed to 115, 149 and 106. When the opposite party was not coming up for execution of sale deed she repeatedly sent letters and finally issued registered notice dated 19.6.2006 claiming interest @ 24% p.a., as the prices have been escalated. Though market rate was Rs. 10,000 per sq. yd., she restricted her claim to Rs. 6,300 per sq. yd. viz., Rs. 18,90,000. Therefore she filed the complaint directing the respondent to register the plot No. 106 or in the alternative refund Rs. 89,480 with interest @ 24% p.a., from 15.8.1999 and award damages at Rs. 3,600 per sq. yd. and costs of Rs. 10,000.
4. The opposite party resisted the case. While admitting that it has been carrying on the real estate business with an object to provide house sites at lower price and in instalments it alleged that under the agreement the customer has to pay the amount besides development charges, stamp duty and registration charges. She required to pay registration charges but she did not do so. She has been only demanding the amount with interest. It was made to spend lot of amount in getting various permissions from the authorities. In fact VUDA has not approved the lay out and therefore it could not be developed. There is no deficiency on its part. It is the civil Court that is empowered to adjudicate the matter in regard to specific performance of an agreement. The complainant has violated the terms of the agreement, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and that of his son and got Exs. Al to A21 marked while the opposite party filed the affidavit evidence of its Manager and did not file any document.
6. The Distt. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the opposite party a real estate company, and while floating a scheme for allotment of house plots agreed to sell a plot vide agreement Ex. A1. However, it went on changing the plot numbers and finally it did not allot any plot, more so without venture being approved. It amounts to deficiency in service and therefore while directing refund of amount awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh together with costs of Rs. 5,000.
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred F.A. 797/2008 contending that the Distt. Forum ought to have seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly awarded interest @ 18% p.a., in cases of this nature. It ought to have awarded compensation in view of escalation of prices evident from Ex. A20. The compensation awarded was too low, and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed as prayed for.
8. Equally aggrieved the opposite party preferred F.A. 784/2008 contending that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in case of seeking relief for specific performance. It was barred by limitation. The complainant did not pay registration charges besides consideration. Without any basis it ought not to have awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lakh and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed by dismissing the complaint.
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law
10. It is an undisputed fact that the opposite party a real estate company floated a venture wherein
