Baba Constructions vs Bandaru Goutham

This revision is directed against the order dated 19.6.2006 of A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, where on payment of balance amount of Rs. 10,000 by the respondent the petitioner is to register flat No. F-4 in favour of the respondent.

In short, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. Smt. Salike Hemalatha, opposite party No. 4 and her husband, Salike Satyamurthy, opposite party No. 2 joined hands to build residential-cum-commercial complex on the land owned by the former. An irrevocable power-of-attorney in favour of Salike Satyamurthy was executed by her wife. Respondent entered into an agreement with Smt. Salike Hemlatha in regard to undivided portion in the land. Respondent further entered into an agreement with Salike Satyamurthy carrying business in the name of M/s. Baba Construction, opposite party No. 1 for purchase of flat No. F-4. On certain disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent filed Complaint Case No. 131 of 1991 against the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 and opposite parties 2 and 4. This complaint alongwith other complaints was disposed of by the State Commission by a common order dated 25.1.2001. In terms of this order, petitioner was directed to register the flat in question in favour of the respondent and amount of Rs. 10,000 deposited by the respondent pursuant to the interim order dated 21.12.1999 was thereafter to be released in his favour. This order further notices that the parties were at liberty to approach the civil court in respect of those claims which were not decided in that order. Dissatisfied with the order dated 25.1.2001, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by this Commission by the order dated 20.12.2002. Civil Appeal No. 8802/03 arising out of S.L.P. No. 13856/03 preferred by the petitioner was disposed by the Supreme Court by the order dated 10.11.2003 with the following observations : "Without expressing anything on the merits of the respective contentions with regard to the inter se liability in terms of money, we dispose of this appeal by directing the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to decide the remaining controversy, for which it gave liberty to both the parties to approach the civil court. We, however, make it clear that the impugned order in all other respects remain undisturbed, except to the extent remanded."

It seems that in the meantime, the respondent filed execution proceedings which was disposed of by the State Commission by the order dated 24.5.2004 directing the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 to execute and register sale deed as per the order dated 25.1.2001 in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed R. P. No. 2011/04 before this Commission which was disposed of by the order dated 4.3.2005 in following terms : "Directions as made in the order under challenge to opposite party No. 2 and the petitioner to execute and register sale deed as per order dated 25.1.2001 can only be subject to payment of Rs. 18,233 (Rs. 33,169 minus Rs. 14,946 shown as paid in the statement at page 95) and interest, if any. Respondent will, thus, deposit the balance amount with the State Commission within three weeks. Sale deed will be executed and registered thereafter as per the order dated 25.1.2001 by the opposite parties 2 and 4 within three weeks. After execution and registration of sale deed the deposited amount shall be released by the State Commission in favour of opposite parties No. 2 and 4."

Not satisfied with this order, the petitioner filed S.L.P. No. 11444/05 which was disposed of by the order dated 19.9.2005 by the Supreme Court in following terms : "It appears that there is a dispute between the parties about certain monetary claims made by each party against the other. The respondent who is appearing in person before us submits that he has moved the State Commission for certain clarifications in this behalf. Let the State Commission look into all the aspects and in the light of the order of the National Commission, pass appropriate orders."

Impugned order dated 19.6.2006 thereafter came to be passed by the State Commission.

On 24.8.2006, the petitioner has filed written version and in para No. 3 thereof the details of the amounts due from respondent have been indicated thus :

"(a) Lawful claim of petitioner/opposite party supported by documents/bill etc. Rs. 33,169

Less : Value of material supplied by respondent/complainant Rs. 4,140

Less : Amount received through Baba Apartments Welfare Association in December, 1999 Rs. 3,562

(b) Balance receivable Rs. 25,467

(c) Interest receivable from 1.4.1988 to 31.12.2005 Rs. 1,30,796

Total Rs. 1,56,263

It is alleged that said amount of Rs. 33,169 was towards the extra work done and was payable by the respondent under the second agreement.

Contention advanced by Salike Satyamurthy, opposite party No. 2 was that the sale deed in respect of the flat in question can be executed and registered only subject to payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,56,263 by the respondent. It was pointed that amount of Rs. 14,946 referred to in the order dated 4.3.2005 was not paid by the respondent. On the other hand, while disputing the liability for payment of the said amount it was contended by the respondent that he is also entitled to the amount approximately of Rs. 47,000 as per the Advocate Commissioners report which he had spent in removing the defects in the flat. It was not disputed that amount of Rs. 14,946 was not paid by him. To be noted that in the impugned order the State Commission has not recorded any basis how it reached the figure of Rs. 20,000 for payment whereof direction was made to the respondent. Aforesaid order dated 25.1.2001 which has attained finality, notices that the respondents claim on the said count was rejected by the State Commission for want of evidence. That being so, the respondent cannot be permitted to raise it in this revision. In our view, respondent is liable to pay the said amount of Rs. 33,169 towards extra work done minus Rs. 4,140 being the value of material supplied by him and Rs. 3,562 being the amount paid through Baba Apartments Welfare Association which comes to Rs. 25,467 as a condition for execution and registration of the sale deed in respect of flat No. F-4 by opposite parties 2 and 4. Considering the order dated 25.1.2001 as also the facts and circumstances of case, petitioner is not entitled to any interest. Impugned order, thus, deserves to be modified to that extent.

Accordingly, while allowing revision aforesaid order dated 19.6.2006 is modified and respondent is directed to deposit Rs. 15,467 (Rs. 25,467 minus Rs. 10,000 already lying in deposit with State Commission) within three weeks hereof. Sale deed will thereafter be executed and registered as per the order dated 25.1.2001 by opposite parties 2 and 4 within three weeks. After execution and registration of sale deed said amount of Rs. 15,467 together with amount of Rs. 10,000 deposited pursuant to interim order dated 21.12.1999 by the respondent will be released by the State Commission in favour of the opposite parties. No order as to costs.