E Surender Rao vs Narne Estates Pvt Ltd

THE complainants/petitioner joined Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. for a scheme called Golden Heights Plots Scheme floated by Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd., whereunder a plot measuring 500 sq. yards was to be allotted to him for Rs. 1 lakh. The balance consideration was payable in 35 monthly instalments of Rs. 10,560/ - and last instalment of Rs. 10,500/ -. The plot no. 323 , measuring 500 sq. yards was allotted by the opposite party Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. to the complainants. However, vide letter dated 13.03.2004, the allotment made to the complainant was cancelled on the ground that as per the Scheme they were to pay Rs. 10,500/ - per month, but there had been no response from them. Later, the opposite party offered to restore the allotment made to the complainant subject to payment of arrears alongwith interest. Pursuant thereto, the complainants made payment of Rs. 1,96,760/ - on 19.06.2004 and they also paid Rs. 22,572/ - as interest on 16.7.2004. The total amount paid by the complainants, thereby reached Rs. 4,96,332/ -. Thereafter, the opposite party vide letter dated 21.08.2004, changed the plot allotted to the complainants from plot no. 323 to GH 335. Vide letter dated 14.09.2004, the complainants were informed that the plot no. 323 had been sold to another person, before the said plot was restored in their names. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid act of the opposite party, the complainant approached the District Forum, seeking the following reliefs: - "19. The complainants are claiming that the plot bearing no. 323 of Golden Heights Scheme, Medical be conveyed in their names by execution and registration of sale deed in the names of the complainant. The complainant no. 1 is a medical practitioner and specialist in Gynaecology having experience since about two decades. He has reputation and good amount of practice at Nizamabad. He had to loose his practice on his visits to Hyderabad to meet the officials of O.P. No. 1 on account of the mis -deeds of the O.P. No. 1 by attempting to change the plot allotted to the Complainants. The loss moderately estimated is at Rs. 1 lakh. The complainant no. 1 had also incurred expenses. The Complainants are claiming Rs. 1 lakh towards expenses for their visits to Hyderabad. They have visited the office of the opposite parties at least 20 or 25 times. The complainants are further claiming Rs. 1 lakh for the mental torture due to the illegal acts of the opposite parties and for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainants are particulars of getting conveyed the plot bearing no. 323 that was allotted to them. For any reason, if the said relief, cannot be granted, the Complainants in alternative for claiming refund if of Rs. 48,000/ - and damages of Rs. 48,000/ - towards loss on account of escalation in the price of the plot as the present market value has doubled. The complainants are also claiming interest at the rate of 24 % p.a. on the amount/s that may be awarded by the Hon''ble forum from the date of the complaint till the realization.

We are further claiming Rs. 1 lakh for the mental torture due to the illegal acts of the opposite parties and for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. We are particular of getting conveyed the plot bearing no. 323 that was allotted to us. For any reason, if the said relief, cannot be granted, in the alternate the amount of Rs. 4,80,000/ - be directed to be refunded to us along with further damages of Rs. 4,80,000/ - towards loss on account of escalation in the price of the plot as the present market value has doubled. We are also claiming interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the amounts that may be awarded by the Hon''ble forum from the date of complaint till the realization".

THE complaint was resisted by the opposite party on several grounds including that allotment of plot no. 323 in favour of the complainants was cancelled due to violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement by them. Vide order dated 30.11.2007, the District Forum gave the following directions to the opposite parties: - "1) Execute and Register the Sale Deed in respect of Plot No.323 at Golden Heights Phase -I, Medchal in favour of the complainant after receiving Rs.4,80,000/ - (Rupees four lakhs eighty thousand only) (the Original cost of the Plot) from the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of this Order.

2) The ad -interim orders dated 11 -8 -2005 passed in I.A.No.33/2005 are dismissed accordingly.

3) The complainant is directed to withdraw Rs.4,96,236/ - (Rupees four lakhs ninety six thousand two hundred and thirty six only) the amount deposited by the complainant in Civil Deposit of the Consumer Forum as per the Orders in I.A.No.29/2007.

4) The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/ - to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and inconvenience, and also to pay Rs.1,000/ - as costs of complaint.

5) Time one month to comply the above directions No. 1, 3 and 4 from the date of receipt of this order."

BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which is stated to be still pending. During pendency of the appeal, the complainants/petitioners filed an application, seeking impleadment of the purchaser of plot no. 323 namely Smt. Rita Garg as respondent no. 3. The said application was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 25.09.2013. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the State Commission, the complainant filed Writ Petition No. 31320/2013 before the Hon''ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. The Write Petition, however, was dismissed as not maintainable. The complainants have, therefore, now filed this revision petition assailing the order of the State Commission dated 25.09.2013. This is not the case of the complainants/petitioners that Smt. Rita Garg, was aware of the allotment of plot no. 323 in the name of the complainants and its subsequent cancellation, at the time allotment in her favour, was made. As noted earlier by us, the opposite party has informed the complainant vide letter dated 14.09.2004 that the plot no. 323 had been allotted by them to another person after the allotment in favour of the complainants was cancelled. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that Smt. Rita Garg was a bonafide purchaser/ allottee of the aforesaid plot without any notice of the claim of the complainants to the said plot.

THE complainants despite having come to know from the letter of the opposite party dated 14.09.2004, that the plot no. 323 had been allotted to some other person, made no attempt to ascertain the identity of the allotee from the opposite party and implead her as a party, either before or during pendency of the complaint before the District Forum.

SECTION 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant, provides that if the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely: - (a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question;

(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect;

(c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant;

(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party:

[Provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit;]

(e) to remove the defects in goods or deficiencies in the services in question;

(f) to discontinue the unfair trade practice or the restrictive trade practice or not to repeat them;

(g) not to offer the hazardous goods for sale;

m (h) to withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale;

(ha) to cease manufacture of hazardous goods and to desist from offering services which are hazardous in nature;

m (hb) to pay such sum as may be determined by it if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently:

Provided that the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be less than five per cent. of the value of such defective goods sold or service provided, as the case may be, to such consumers:

Provided further that the amount so obtained shall be credited in favour of such person and utilized in such manner as may be prescribed;

(hc) to issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisement at the cost of the opposite party responsible for issuing such misleading advertisement;

(i) to provide for adequate costs to parties."

ADMITTEDLY sale deed in favour of Smt. Rita Garg has already been executed by the opposite party on 19.05.2006. In our opinion, it is not in the power of the District Forum to cancel the aforesaid sale deed in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 14 of the Act. This would be more so, when the purchaser is a transferee for consideration without any notice of the claim of the complainants and the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum. If the State Commission comes to the conclusion that cancellation of allotment of plot no. 323 to the complainants was not justified, it can suitably compensate the complainants in this regard, taking into account, the difference if any between the value of plot no. 323 and that of plot no. GH -335. But, it cannot cancel the registered sale deed executed in favour of a bonafide purchaser. Therefore, in our opinion, no useful purpose would have been served by impleading Smt. Rita Garg as a party to the appeal which the opposite party has filed before the State Commission. We, therefore, find no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.

SINCE , we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order on merits, no useful purpose would be served in condoning the delay in filing the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.