Baba Constructions & Ors vs Bandaru Gautam

The complainant (respondent) filed a consumer complaint against the appellant/opposite party alleging deficiency in service in the matter of

construction of a flat in Balanagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. This was partly allowed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, (for short, ‘the State Commission’) vide order dated 25.01.2001 and direction was given to the

appellant/opposite party to execute the sale deed. Simultaneously, the complainant/respondent was directed to pay the balance amount, if any, to the

appellant/opposite party with interest.

The appeal filed against the order of the State Commission dated 25.1.2001 was dismissed by the National Commission. The appellant not being

satisfied with the order of the National Commission filed Civil Appeal No.8802 of 2003 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was disposed of by

the Apex Court on 10.11.2003 by directing the State Commission to decide the remaining controversy between the parties.

In the second round of litigation, the State Commission again directed the appellant/opposite party to execute the sale deed in favour of the

respondent/complainant. The revision filed by the appellant/opposite party was disposed of by the National Commission by directing the

appellant/opposite party to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent/complainant in terms of the order of the State Commission subject to

payment of the specified amount and interest, if any. The appellant not being satisfied with the order of the State Commission fled Special Leave

Petition (C) No.11444 of 2005 which was decided by the Apex Court on 19.09.2005 with a direction to the State Commission to look into all the

aspects of the case.

In compliance of the direction given by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Commission again considered the matter and passed detailed order

dated 19.06.2006, the relevant portions of which are extracted below :-

Taking into consideration that this matter has been pending since 1991 and that the complainant submits that he has been made to run to pillar to post

and the opposite party has been avoiding registration of the flat for more than 10 years and that he is tired and vexed with the attitude of the opposite

party and to purchase peace he is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.14,946/- with a view to put an end to this long standing litigation and the defiant

attitude of the opposite party and in the interest of justice we direct the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party and on such

payment the opposite party shall register the flat in favour of the complainant within a period of six weeks from today.

It is submitted that in pursuance of the interim order of this Commission dt.21.12.1999, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- before this

Commission on 28.12.1999 and the said sum is lying in deposit with this Commission. Hence the complainant is directed to pay to the opposite party

the balance sum of Rs.10,000/- and on such payment the opposite party shall register the flat in favour of the complainant within a period of six weeks

from today, failing which penalty proceedings will be initiated against the opposite party. The complaint is accordingly disposed of to the extent

indicated above. Time for compliance six weeks.

The revision filed by the appellant against the said order of the State Commission dated 19.6.2006 was allowed by the National Commission vide

order dated 2.7.2007 and the following directions were given to the parties:

Accordingly, while allowing revision aforesaid order dated 19.06.06 is modified and respondent is directed to deposit Rs.15,467/- (Rs.25,467/- minus

of Rs.10,000/-already lying in deposit with State Commission) with the State Commission within three weeks hereof. Sale deed will thereafter be

executed and registered as per the order dated 25.01.01 by opposite parties 2 & 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 21.12.99 by the respondent will be released

by the State Commission in favour of the opposite parties.

The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of the National Commission in SLP (C) No.2449 of 2000, which was summarily dismissed by the

Supreme Court vide order dated 10.03.2008.

In the meanwhile, the respondent/complainant filed M.A. No.129 of 2008 in R.P. No.1753 of 2006 before the National Commission for condonation

of 128 days delay in deposit of the amount in terms of order dated 2.7.2007 and extension of time by two weeks. The National Commission dismissed

the application of the respondent/complainant seeking condonation of delay/extension of time for deposit of the amount without adverting to the

contents in MA/129/2008. This gave rise to filing of Civil Appeal No.294 of 2011. Arising out of SLP (C) 18123 of 2009. Hon’ble Supreme Court

disposed of the aforesaid appeal vide order dated 10.1.2011 with following observations:

“We have heard Shri. K. Maruthi Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and perused the record including the counter affidavit

filed by the respondent through its Promoter, Salike Sathyamurthy, who has narrated the sequence of events leading to the filing of the special leave

petition by the appellant and made the following claim:

It is further submitted by this Respondent that the Petitioner herein has to discharge still the liability of Rs.1,87,651/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Seven

Thousand only) in all including the simple interest of 18% till 30.11.2010 that is Rs.10,000/- for the dues of cost as per the first agreement as ordered

by the State Commission and Rs.25,467/- towards the extra work done and admitted by the Petitioner himself in courts below and allowed by the

National Commission and Rs.1,52,144/- towards simple interest @ 18% allowed and ordered by the courts below (by the State Commission as well as

the National Commission earlier) in favour of the Respondent herein.

In our view, the appellant had made out a case for extension of the time and the National Commission committed serious error by declining his request

and that too without even looking into the averments contained in the application filed for the purpose. If the National Commission did not feel satisfied

with the averments contained in the application about the appellant’s illness, then it could have called upon him to file the relevant documents and

then decided the application. However, there was absolutely no justification for rejection of the appellant’s prayer for extension of time by ignoring

that he has been forced to litigate due to the obstinate attitude adopted by the respondent.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the National Commission is set aside. The appellant is granted four weeks’ time

from today for making payment in terms of the order passed by the National Commission. Once the amount is paid by the appellant, the respondent

shall execute the sale deed and get the same registered within next six weeks.â€​

Pursuant to the aforesaid order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.1.2011 the respondent/complainant deposited Rs.5,467/- by way of bank

draft in the State Commission to be delivered to the appellant/opposite party. Despite that the opposite party failed to execute the sale deed in respect

of the subject flat. Respondent/complainant therefore filed execution application No.36 of 2012 in the State Commission seeking help of the State

Commission in getting the order implemented. The execution application was contested by the appellant and it was disposed of by the State

Commission vide its order dated 15.4.2013. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under: -

“ In the result, the respondent/opposite parties are directed to execute the registered sale deed, in respect of flat No.F-4, Block-II, Baba

Apartments, Vinayaknagar, Bala Nagar, Hyderabad, R.R. District in favour of the petitioner/complainant as directed by this Commission on

21.12.1999 by bearing the additional stamp duty, if any, over and above Rs.33,000/- which the petitioner has already purchased, within three weeks,

failing which, the proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, will be launched against the respondents/opposite parties for imposing

the punishment. Call on 8.5.2013.â€​

The appellant not being satisfied with the order of the State Commission filed appeal No.482 of 2013 in the National Commission. The said appeal

filed by the appellant/opposite party was dismissed by Bench No.1 of this Commission comprising of three members vide order dated 18.11.2013.The

appellant thereafter filed review application No.19 of 2014 seeking review of the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the National Commission. Review

application was dismissed vide order dated 27.1.2015.

Thereafter, the appellant again approached Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No.25449-25450 of 2014. Hon’ble Supreme Court

vide order dated 22 nd July, 2015 dismissed the SLPs with the following observations: -

“We, therefore, dismiss these special leave petitions with a direction that the respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- before the State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, to be paid to the petitioner in full and final settlement of all his outstanding dues. The deposit shall be made

within six weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We leave it open to the competent authority to have the orders already made and

affirmed in appeals and revisions executed by taking recourse to such proceedings as may be necessary in accordance with law.â€​

Thereafter, the respondent/complainant filed execution application EA/07/2015 in the aforesaid consumer dispute 131 of 191 before Telangana

State Commission. Execution petition was contested by the appellant. Execution petition was allowed by the State Commission vide order dated 28 th

March, 2016. Operative portion of the order is reproduced as under: -

“ In the result, the petition is allowed directing the respondents/opposite parties No.1, 2 and 4 to execute the sale deed in respect of flat No.F-4,

Block-II, Baba Apartments, Vinayaknagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy district in favour of the petitioner/complainant and convey the

property, by bearing the additional stamp duty, if any, over and above Rs.33,000/- which the petitioner has already purchased, within one month from

the date of this order. The parties shall bear their own costs.â€​

Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the opposite party has preferred the instant appeal.

The appellant submits that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that State Commission has failed to

appreciate that the respondent/complainant has failed to pay the total consideration amount as per the agreement between the parties. It is further

contended by the appellant that otherwise also perusal of the orders passed by the Apex Court would show that respondent/complainant was supposed

to pay respective sums of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,467/- and Rs.10,000/- to the appellant but the complainant with the mala-fide intent deposited the same in

the State Commission by way of bank draft in the name of the Registrar. Thus, the amount did not reach the hands of the appellants. As such, the

complainant is liable to pay interest on the said amount for the period till the amount reaches the hands of the appellant.

So far as first limb of the argument of the appellant is concerned, we do not find merit in the same. It is well settled that Executing Court cannot

go beyond the decree and has to execute the decree as it is. As per the sequence of events discussed above, the respondent/complainant was

supposed to pay to the appellant Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,467/- and Rs.10,000/- in full and final settlement of his obligation. Therefore, in execution petition,

we cannot go into the plea of the appellant that he has not received the full consideration amount. First limb of argument is therefore rejected.

Coming to the second limb of argument, perusal of the respective orders passed by the Apex Court would show that as per those orders the

respondent/complainant was required to deposit besides Rs.10,000/- already deposited, sum of Rs.5,467/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. The

respondent/complainant states that in compliance of the orders passed by the Apex Court he has deposited the respective amounts in the State

Commission by way of bank drafts in the name of the Registrar of the State Commission, but the appellant- judgment debtor for reasons best known

to him has not got the conveyance deed registered in favour of the complainant/decree holder. The appellant/judgment debtor on the contrary has

contended that respondent/complainant has not complied with the order.

Respondent/complainant, however, has not been able to show proof of deposit of the respective amounts in terms of the order of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the State Commission. Ordinarily, we would have insisted for the proof, however, taking note of the fact that this litigation is pending

since 1991, in order to put an end to litigation, we dispose of the appeal with direction that the appellant shall get the conveyance deed of the subject

flat executed and registered in favour of the respondent/complainant within one month.

The expenses for stamp duty and registration charges shall be borne by the respondent/complainant. The appellant on registration of the conveyance

deed shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,467/- deposited by the complainant in the State Commission with the interest, if any, accrued.

It is, however, made clear that if the aforesaid amount is found not deposited in the State Commission the respondent shall pay to the appellant the

aforesaid sum of Rs.25,467/- with 8% interest p.a. from 10.11.2003.

It is made clear that in the event of failure of the appellant/opposite party to comply with the order, the respondent/complainant may resort to

proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the appellant.