Emani Sharada Devi vs G.V.R. Murthy

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.07.2011 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Vishakhapatnam (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 233 of 2009 - Emani Sharada Devi Vs. G.V.R. Murthy by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner entered into an agreement for purchase of apartment from OP/respondent and paid Rs.45,000/ - on 7.1.2005 and later on paid some more amount in installments totaling Rs.5,05,000/ -. OP executed agreement on 7.1.2005 representing himself as power of attorney holder of Mr. A.S. Raja and further agreed to execute sale deed in respect of undivided share of land to the extent of 35 sq. yds. and further agreed to deliver possession of apartment in May, 2005. Neither construction was completed nor sale deed was executed and OP demanded Rs.1800/ - per sq. ft . instead of agreed Rs.1035/ - per sq. ft. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint, denied execution of sale agreement and further submitted that agreement dated 7.1.2005 was construction agreement. Complainant has neither impleaded A.S. Raja, nor filed sale deed and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint and directed complainant to approach competent Civil Court. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of agreement dated 7.1.2005 and payment of construction cost, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that agreement between the complainant and the OP was executed for construction of apartment and it was not the agreement for sale of flat. In this agreement, complainant pretended himself to be owner of the area purchased from A.S. Raja as general power of attorney holder of Y. Krishna Rao who was necessary party in the complaint. OP in his written statement denied execution of agreement. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that amount deposited by him with OP may be refunded but we do not find any such prayer in the complaint and in absence of such prayer, no such order for refund of money could have been passed by learned District Forum.

LOOKING to the denial of the agreement for sale of flat and not impleading necessary party, learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint and directed complainant to approach competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievances, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdiction error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on III (2008) CPJ 48 (SC) - FaqirChand Gulati Vs. UppalAgencies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., but this citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the aforesaid judgment, owner of the land filed complaint against developer, whereas in the present case complainant has come with a case that OP entered into an agreement to sell flat. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.