M/S. NCC URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs RAVI KRISHNA PRASAD

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.08.2010 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short "the State Commission) in Complaint No. 53 of 2009 - Ravi Krishna Prasad Vs. M/s. NCC Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Rep. by its authorized signatory by which, complaint was partly allowed.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is a resident of USA executed GPA in favour of his father to enter into an agreement with the opposite party/petitioner a builder for purchase of a flat. Accordingly, his father paid Rs. 16,11,334/- on various dates viz., Rs. 4 lakhs on 24.5.2007, Rs. 2 lakhs on 5.6.2007, Rs. 9,97,340/- on 11.6.2007 and Rs. 13,994/- on 9.7.2007 to the opposite party. When he sought loan for payment of remaining balance of sale consideration the nationalized banks raised objection. He came to know that there was no proper permission. The government had informed that the Hon''ble Supreme Court ordered status quo during the pendency of the dispute. The very entering into agreement for sale of the flat is contrary to the orders of the Supreme Court. The opposite party had suppressed the orders of Supreme Court besides various orders of injunctions issued by statutory authorities. The complaint was filed seeking refund of Rs. 16,11,334/- with interest @ 24% p.a., Rs. 5,00,000/- towards increase in dollar rate, Rs. 15 lakhs towards increased rate of apartment and costs.

The opposite party builder resisted the case by denying each and every allegation made by the complainant. It was further alleged that there was breach of agreement and complainant did not adhere to the payment schedule annexed to the agreement. As against the sale consideration of Rs.1,07,42,225/-, the complainant had paid Rs. 16,11,334/-. The complainant had verified the title and having satisfied entered into agreement of sale on 7.7.2007 for purchase of a flat for a consideration of Rs. 1,07,42,225/- as mentioned above. They have applied for regularization of the title for the land situated at Sy.No. 46 part and Sy.No. 53 part including the extent of Ac. 9.24 gts. They purchased the property from the real owners under various deeds and they have acquired the property by virtue of permit No. 13092/BP/CDA/2006 Dt. 15.5.2007 issued by Hyderabad Development Authority. It had started other preparatory works. Pursuant to the above approval HUDA had also issued permission to construct residential apartments. It had never promised to arrange for loan or financial assistance through financial institutions or banks. It had only promised to assist the complainant for processing the loan. The property was not under any litigation, this was alleged in order to evade the agreement of sale and to cover up his own breach. They were not a party to the proceedings. Substantial part of sale consideration was due. In order to evade payment the complainant was taking all these untenable pleas to get over payment of balance of sale consideration. It was ready to execute sale deed provided balance of sale consideration is paid. Since there are latches on the part of complainant and had violated the terms of the agreement, it was not liable to refund the said amount and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed OP to refund Rs.16,11,334/- with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 10,000/- against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

Delay of 4 days was condoned by the order dated 14.12.2010.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that due to not making payment by complainant in time, OP was entitled to forfeit some amount; even then, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint and directing refund of full payment with interest; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be modified. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

Perusal of record reveals that parties entered into tripartite agreement dated 7.7.2007 in which it was mentioned that Party No. 7 to 25 of the first part are sole and absolute owner of land measuring 3 Acres 16 Guntas in Survey no. 46/part & Survey no. 53/palkl, situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, RR District and it was further mentioned that party no. 1 to 6 are sole and absolute owner of land measuring 3 Acres 16 Guntas in Survey no. 46/part & Survey no. 53/palkl, situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, RR District and it was further mentioned that party no. 7 to 25 through a registered agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney purchased property from party no. 7 to 25 which indicates that OP did not get sale deed executed in its favour; even then, OP proceeded in allotting flats on the land which was contrary to law. Not only this, record further reveals that Hon''ble High Court of A.P. by order dated 8.9.2006 in SLP (C) No.6093 of 2006 - JT. Collr., Ranga Reddy Dist., A.P. & Ors. Vs. Gadda Baliah & Ors. pertaining to disputed land and other land ordered parties to maintain status quo on the spot; even then, OP booked flat of complainant after receiving part consideration. Record further reveals that Hon''ble High Court of A.P. in C.R.P. Nos: 6708 & 1200 of 2003, C.R.P.S.R. Nos. 24532 & 24636 of 2012 - G. Balaiah & Ors. Vs. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & Ors. by order dated 25.2.2013 declared State entitled to forthwith resume possession of the land to an extent of Ac.137.17 cts in Sy. Nos. 35-37,40,42-47 and 53 part of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which had irrevocably vested in its under provisions of the Ceiling Act and this order was challenged before Hon''ble Apex Court and Hon''ble Apex Court vide order dated 7.10.2013 dismissed SLPs which makes it clear that parties of first part to the agreement to sell were not owner of the land and OP without purchasing land by registered sale deed allotted flat to the complainant and received part consideration which is clearly contrary to law and in such circumstances, complainant rightly asked OP by letter dated 11.4.2009 to refund amount received. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not show any document to prove that appellant was owner of disputed land and he rightly allotted flat to the respondent and in such circumstances, learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing refund of deposited amount with interest. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per agreement, appellant is entitled to forfeit 25% of the amount deposited by the complainant in case complainant fails to make payment. This argument is devoid of force because when appellant was not owner of the land and committed fraud with complainant while booking flat and giving wrong particulars in agreement to sell about ownership of land, appellant is not entitled to forfeit any amount of the complainant.

In the light of above discussion, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.08.2010 passed by the learned State Commission in Complaint No. 53 of 2009 - Ravi Krishna Prasad Vs. M/s. NCC Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Rep. by its authorized signatory is dismissed with no order as to costs.