AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS order shall decide two revision petitions which have been filed by different complainants against the same opposite parties -Builder because these revision petitions entail the same question of law. The first revision petition (RP No. 1829/2012) was filed by Mrs. Khandrika Aruna against M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. represented by its Chairman -cum -Managing Director, Central Office, Hyderabad, and M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. represented by its Chairman -cum -Managing Director, Registered Office, Guntur. The second revision petition (RP No - 1942/2012) was filed by Shri P.K.S. Kumar & Sh. P. Udaya Kumar against M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Finance Ltd., Hyderabad and at Happy Homes Apartments, Guntur. Their case pertains to revision petition No. 1942/2012. There is a delay in filing the revision petition by 21 days. We have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and in view of the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay is condoned. The facts of these cases are these.
IN RP No. 1942/2012, the complainant prays that the respondent should be directed to register the plot bearing No. 75, bearing 400 sq.yds. and another revision petition bearing No. 1829/2012, the complainant Mrs. Khandrika Aruna prays that plot bearing No. 107 measuring 400 sq.yds. be registered. Both the plots are situated in Sai Laxmi -11 Venture at Nanakramguda, Hyderabad. After receiving the balance consideration of Rs. 3,00,000 and Rs. 2,18,000, respectively, at the time of registration, in both the complaint cases, the complainants have demanded damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 each and costs in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each. This is an admitted fact that the parties entered into agreements with the OP to purchase two plots each. The cost of each plot is Rs. 3,40,000 i.e., bearing 200 sq.yds. The amount was to be paid in installments, in forty monthly installments, besides special installments. In case No. 1942/2012, both the complainants paid Rs. 2,31,000 till 4.11.2004. According to the complainants, they had to pay the rest of the amount at the time of registration of sale deed. The complainants sent a letter dated 19.11.2007 to the OP with the request to register the sale deed for which the OP gave reply dated 3.12.2007 requesting for further time on the ground of administrative problem. However, the respondent issued cancellation letter dated 22.1.2008 informing the complainants that the allotment of plots were cancelled.
IN the case of Mrs. K. Aruna, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 3,80,000 and the balance consideration of Rs. 3,20,000 as per the letter dated 7.8.2000 was payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. The case of the OP is that installments were not paid in time. The complainants had fabricated documents to suit their claim that the balance amount is payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 on 30.5.2004. As per the agreement, in case of default committed by the complainants, for a period of more than two consecutive installments and two special installments, the membership was to be cancelled. Document dated 2.8.2000 issued by V. Subba Reddy while working in cahoots with complainant does not carry any value because he was not an employee of the respondent. Both the complainants were defaulters. Yet, the OP offered plots as per the terms and conditions. The complainants did not agree and as such notices dated 22.1.2008 for cancellation of plots were to be issued.
THE District Forum concluded that the complainant had failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP but the respondents were entitled to refund of the amount. The District Forum directed the OP to refund the amount in the sum of Rs. 2,31,000 to each of the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a. from 4.11.2004 till the date of realization in RP No. 1942/2012 and directed the OP to pay Rs. 3,00,000 and registration charges to the complainant. But in RP No. 1829/2012, the complaint was accepted and the complainant was directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000 and registration charges to the OP within one month from the receipt of the order. It was further directed that on receipt of the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 and registration charges, the OP is directed to execute regular sale deed in favour of the complainant and deliver the possession within one month, with costs of Rs. 1,000. Rest of the claim was dismissed. We have heard the Counsel for the petitioners at the time of admission of this case. It may be mentioned here that the terms and conditions of the agreement have been reproduced in the order of the State Commission. Those terms and conditions hardly need any reiteration. Firstly, the company employees were not authorized to make any promises beyond or contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties. It was also clear that those who committed default in payment, their membership was to be cancelled without further notice and all amounts paid by such members till then were to be forfeited treating as compensation and liquidated damages for such breach of trust.
COUNSEL for the petitioners, though admitted that the complainants were defaulters but respondents denied issuance of letter dated 2.8.2008. The Counsel for the complainants/petitioners further explained that it was the duty of the OPs to collect money. OPs did not collect the money from them and when took up the matter with OPs, they, on one pretext or the other, delayed the matter. Learned Counsel for the petitioners could not produce any evidence to support his contention.
WE find no merit in his arguments. It is clear that complainants paid the money in installments, till 4.11.2004 and then stopped payment of the amount not showing any cause, till they chose to issue letter dated 19.11.2007. They remained silent for a period for three years. The silence on their part is pernicious. If in case the OP had refused to accept the installments they should have sent it by post through Cheque, Demand Draft, etc. No useful purpose is served if somebody buries his head in the sand. Clause 4(c), condition No. 20 is very crucial. This clause thus has substance and needs no frills. The complainants have agreed to terms and conditions of the said agreement. Again, the letter issued by Dr. V. Subba Reddy/OP does not come to the rescue of the complainants. It does not show that he is an employee of the said company. Secondly, the agreement pertains to the employee restraining them from any promises to customers beyond or contrary to the terms and conditions settled between the parties. The concluding portion of the judgment passed by the State Commission is reasonable and justified. This appears to be the true exercise of benevolent legislation. It appears that the State Commission had its heart in its right place. The complainants have been given plots in other ventures of the OP subject to the application of the terms and conditions thereof. We see no illegality or infirmity with the order passed by the learned State Commission. The same is the position with the other revision petition. Consequently, the same order is passed. The revision petitions are without any merit and, therefore, the same are dismissed.