Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao and Thota Ashok Kumar, Members
NARNE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
M.A. AKBER KHAN - Respondent
First Appeal No. 999 of 2009
Decided on : 08-12-2011
Mr. M. Hari Babu, Advocate, for the Appellant; M/s. Gopi Rajesh Associates, Advocates, for the Respondent
Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice can entitle a consumer to refund of the amount with interest, compensation, and costs under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Real Estate Transaction - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(zn), Section 14(1), Section 21, Section 27] - The court discussed the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant company in relation to the allotment and sale of the plot, as well as the unfair trade practice played upon the respondent. The court highlighted the appellant's failure to obtain final approval of the layout, unilateral cancellation of the allotment, and non-disclosure of pending land grabbing cases, constituting deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent purchased a plot from the appellant, but the appellant failed to obtain final approval of the layout, unilaterally cancelled the allotment, and did not disclose pending land grabbing cases. The respondent sought execution of sale deed or refund of the amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant company, leading to mental tension for the respondent. The relief for execution of the sale deed was not sustainable, and the respondent was entitled to refund of the amount with interest, compensation, and costs.
Issues: The issues involved deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, entitlement to execution of sale deed, and refund of the amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's actions constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, leading to the entitlement of the respondent to refund of the amount with interest, compensation, and costs.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 9,39,850 with interest, compensation, and costs to the respondent.
ORDER
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member (Oral)- The opposite party is the appellant.
2. The respondent purchased a plot No. 198 in Sy. No. 218/4 and 218/5 in the extent of 300 sq.yards in Central Park Phase No. II of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District under membership No. 30784 on 19.10.2004 for sale consideration of Rs. 14,40,000. The respondent paid an amount of Rs. 7,49,900 on the same day towards initial payment and the remaining balance amount of Rs. 6,90,100 payable in 23 instalments @ Rs. 28,750 per month commencing from November 2004 till November 2006. The respondent paid a sum of Rs. 12,39,850 to the appellant from 18.10.2004 to 10.3.2006. The appellant through letter dated 6.3.2006 requested the respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,39,150 with additional development charges of Rs. 15,000 and registration charges of Rs. 75,000 totalling to Rs. 3,28,150. The appellant informed the respondent that the final approval was not accorded by HUDA and a case has been filed against the appellant by the neighbourer of the venture before the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Court, Hyderabad. The appellant has not informed the latest position regarding the approval of layout.
3. The appellant addressed letter dated 2.5.2007 requesting the respondent to clear all dues by 15.5.2007 otherwise they would cancel the allotment and refund the amount after deducting the service charges. The appellant vide its latter dated 1.11.2007 cancelled the plot allotted to the respondent though the respondent paid major amount of Rs. 12,39,850 leaving balance of Rs. 2,00,150. The appellant addressed letter to the respondent on 24.11.2007 enclosing a cheque for a sum of Rs. 50,000 and cheque for Rs. l,00,000 with covering letter dated 31.1.2008. The respondent received the said cheques under protest. Thereafter, the appellant had sent another cheque for Rs. 1,50,000 dated 23.2.2008 to the respondent informing that they were not in a position to obtain HUDA approval for the venture.
4. The appellant resisted the case contending that the respondent committed default in payment of balance amount of Rs. 2,38,150 and an amount of Rs. 15,000 towards development charges. Because of pendency of the cases before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and Land Grabbig cases the appellant requested the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 per plot. The respondent did not pay the amounts demanded by them. The appellant cancelled the plot allotted to the respondent by refunding through cheques an amount of Rs. 4 lakh on different occasions. The respondent is not entitled for execution of sale deed conveying the cancelled plot.
5. The respondent has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.Al to A36. On behalf of the appellant company, Col. N. Ranga Rao, its Chairman and Managing Director filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.Bl to B13.
6. The Counsel for the respondent has filed written arguments.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the Distinct Forum, the opposite party has filed the appeal contending that the complainant is not a consumer; the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the matter. The respondent failed to pay the sale consideration, development charges, additional development charges and registration charges. There are several disputed questions of fact in the matter between the parties which can be decided by the Civil Court alone.
8. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant company in respect of the transaction relating to the allotted plot
(ii) Whether the appellant company played unfair trade practice on the respondent
(iii) To what relief
Points Nos. l and 2:
9. The respondent joined the scheme "Central Park" floated by the appellant company by paying an amount of Rs. 100 on 19.10.2004 and on the same day the appellant company has allotted him Membership No. 30874 and the plot bearing number 198 admeasuring 300 sq.yards for consideration of Rs. 14,40,000
