AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 13.07.2011 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal no. 1067 of 2009. By this order, the State Commission upheld the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, Hyderabad (in short, ''the District Forum'') regarding deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners who were the opposite parties (OPs) in the consumer complaint filed by respondent 1 in this revision petition. However, considering the rulings of the Apex Court on the subject, the State Commission reduced the rate of interest from 24% per annum to 18% per annum on the amount of deposit made by the complainant with the petitioners towards the sale price of two plots of land (Rs.3,09,685/-).
IT is an admitted fact that the complainant had paid Rs.3,09,685/- on 14.02.2001 for the purchase of 2 plots (no. 11 and 12) of land measuring 666 square yards in the Scheme floated by the petitioners/OPs. It is also admitted that the petitioners had undertaken to execute the sale deed after obtaining sanction of the competent authority for the final layout at the end of the Scheme period of 48 months. However, the petitioners contended that the complainant was aware of the land acquisition proceedings in which a part of the land of the petitioners was involved and that the petitioner had informed the complainant that it would pay the amount deposited for the plots but without interest.
DEALING with each contention of the petitioners in their appeal before it (which were also their contentions before the District Forum), the State Commission observed as under: "8) For the first time through its publication Narne Estate''s Digest - March 2001, it has informed the purchasers that registrations at Sectors 1 and 2 were temporarily stayed by Collector, Nalgonda District during 1997, pending clearance of allegations on lands at Sector 1 and 2 as Bhoodan Lands. If really that were to be the case the appellant could not have included these properties in this venture, when the appellant knew fully well that certain properties could not be sold, for whatever reasons, it could not offer the property for sale. By letter dated 30.06.2005, it has informed the complainant that ''the property is going to be acquired by the Government for establishing Medical University on the lines of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, next to East City, the land prices around had already escalated and hence the prices of plots of East City are being revised by 25% with effect from 01.08.2005. From now onwards, there is likely to be quick appreciation of plot of East City at about 25% of every six months.'' From this it is beyond doubt that it was never intimated to the complainant that the property allotted to him was acquired by the Government. Later by letter dated 27.01.2006 it informed that plots were acquired by the Government. It alleges that as and when compensation claim is settled by Government the amount will be refunded. It may be stated herein that the appellant having received the entire sale consideration could have refunded the amount and since transfer of title was not made it could sell and collect the amount from the Government, more so, when it could collect more amount in view of escalation of prices in and around the property purchased. Having realised the amount in March 2001 up till 2006 it has been evading execution of sale deed on one ground or the other. The complainant is not a party to the dispute between the appellant and the Government either in regard to acquisition of property or to the order of District Collector, Nalgonda granting stay of registrations. The notices issued by the complainant under Ex. A 8 and A 9 did not evoke any reply. It is obvious that the appellant does not want to refund the amount unless the complainant invokes some legal proceedings. Even up till now it is not known as to what happened to the so call proceedings initiated by the appellant. The fact remains that the appellant could no longer execute registered sale deeds therefore it was bound to refund the amount received by it." 12) In the light of the fact that appellant being a developer doing real estate business and on its own undertaking very huge commercial projects utilising the amounts paid by the gullible consumers for its business and that the complainant all through waiting for refund of the amount or registration of plots for a period of more than 10 years is undoubtedly entitled to compensation. All through the complainant had suffered mental agony and the appellant successfully dragging on the matter for a period of more than 10 years, therefore, we do not see any justification in reducing quantum of compensation except for reducing rate of interest. We do not see any merits in the appeal".
WE have heard Mr. K. P. Toms, learned counsel for the petitioners and considered his submissions as well as the documents placed on record. Mr. Toms has submitted essentially the same points covered comprehensively by the State Commission.
WE have reproduced the relevant parts of the State Commission''s order for it to be clear to any reader how well-reasoned the order is. By his submissions or on the basis of any document on record, Mr. Toms has not been able to show us that there is anything wrong either with the appreciation of facts and evidence in the impugned order of the State Commission or any jurisdictional/legal error therein which could call for our intervention under the provisions of section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
IN view of the foregoing, the revision petition is dismissed in limine, with no order as to cost.