RAMA TRADERS vs BHEEMA VENKATESH

THE first opposite party in number of C.Ds. which were disposed of by a common order preferred these appeals, questioning the order of the District Forum, Mahaboobnagar.

BRIEFLY stated all the complainants in the C.Ds. who are respondents in these appeals joined as members of a scheme, for sale of house plots, floated by the appellant. According to the terms of the scheme that each of the complainants paid Rs. 100/- in the first instance and agreed to pay the balance of 40 monthly instalments depending on the winning of the first, second and third prizes. The total amount payable is Rs. 4000/-. The extent of each plot is 20 ft. x 60 ft., or 30 ft. x 40 ft. It is the case of the complainants that in all most all the cases, except in 3 or 4 cases, where 29 or 30 installments were paid and where the lesser amounts were paid in cases of winners of prizes the complainants paid all the installments. The scheme was completed on 20.1.91. But the opposite parties did not deliver possession and registered the plots immediately after the completion of the scheme. On the other hand on 15.7.1991 the opposite parties wrote a letter to Dr. Seetharama Goud stating that the plots would be provided to all the members within 15 days. But the opposite parties failed to do so. The complainants therefore claimed refund of Rs. 4000/- paid by each of them, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs.1000/-. In the version of the opposite parties, the existence of the scheme and the complainants joining as members of the scheme, and payments of amounts by the complainants, except some little differences was admitted. It is their case that the land under S. Nos. 320, 326, 331, 332 to 336 in the limits of Khambalapura Gram Panchayat was made into plots each of 20 ft. x 60 feet or 30 ft. x 40 ft i.e., 120 sq. feet. The opposite parties applied in advance sometime in October, 1990 to the Gram Panchayat for approval of the lay out with 40 ft. main road and 30 ft. internal roads. The Gram Panchayat referred the matter for approval by Town and Country Planning Authorities. The Authorities directed that the main road should be of 60 feet width and the internal roads of 40 and 33 feet and approved the lay out in L.P. No. 108/91 dated 17.7.1991.Thereafter the opposite parties laid the roads according to the approved lay out and informed all the members about the same and the draw was held ultimately on 13.12.1991 and 316 persons paid the registration fee and those plots were registered in their names, but these complainants without getting the plots allotted and registered in their names with ulterior motives at the instance of the competitors of the opposite parties filed these complaints. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaints are liable to be dismissed.

On behalf of the complainants P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-15 were marked. On himself of the opposite parties RW. 1 was examined and Exs. B1 to B28 were marked.

ON a consideration of the evidence and the arguments advanced the President of the District Forum held that there is no avoidable delay in offering to register the plots. There is no evidence on record to show that the opposite parties have no title and the sufficient number of plots were available and being allotted to the members and infact 360 members were allotted with plots. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaints. But the two members of the District Forum held that there was unreasonable delay on the part of the opposite parties in offering to register the plots, there is some dispute as to the title and that the plots were not sufficient to be allotted to all the members and that the complainants are entitled for refund of the amount paid by them and accordingly directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 4000/- each of the complainants with interest at 18% p.a. from 20.1.1991 till the date of payment, compensation of Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 250/- towards costs. In these appeals, it is submitted that the opposite parties have been deligent throughout and there was no avoidable delay on their part in getting the lay out approved and forming the roads according to the approved plan and allotting the plots by a draw. It was also submitted that under the terms of the scheme, in the event of delay, the complainants are not entitled to ask for the refund of the amount when the opposite parties offered to register the plots in their names and there was no defect in the title of the opposite parties and that therefore the order of the two members is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and the complaints deserves dismissal as was held by the President of the District Forum.

A perusal of the documents show that there was no avoidable delay on the part of the opposite parties. Ex. A-10 was a pamphlet setting out the scheme and its terms and conditions. Ex. A-12 is another pamphlet showing the lay out of the plots and the amenities. No mention was made in these two pamphlets that the lay out was approved by the Town and Country Planning Authorities. Ex. B-l shows that on 26.1.1990 (in the order of the District Forum mentioned, wrongly as 28.10.90) the opposite parties submitted layout plans to Kambalapuram Sarpanch to submit the same for approval by Country and Town Planning Authorities. Ex. A-8 is also to the same effect. These exhibits show that one year prior to 20.1.1991. the date of the competition of the scheme, the opposite parties applied for sanction of lay out, pursuant to the said application, the Sarpanch of Rambalapuram Gram Panchayat on 25.3.1990 as evidenced by Ex.B2 wrote a letter to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Andhra Pradesh submitting lay out plans requesting him for approval of the same. The Director of Town Planning wrote Ex. B3 dated 2.6.1990 to the Sarpanch asking to submit the documents in proof of ownership and also pahanis and E.Cs. Thereafter the layout was approved as evidenced by Ex. B4 and a letter Ex. B5 dated 9.7.1991 was written to the Gram Panchayat approving the lay out and annexure also was sent along with the layout evidenced by Ex.B6. It is the case of the opposite parties that the Town Planning Authorities did not sanction the lay out with 30 feet internal roads, but directed to form 60 feet internal road. Subsequent to the receipt of the approved lay out, the opposite parties have to re-survey, widen the roads and align the plots, and thereafter the complainants were informed that the draw would be held on 15.10.1991. But the draw was actually held on 18.12.1991 as evidenced by Ex. B18 and the plots were registered to nearly 316 persons who paid the registration fee. Ex. B9 is a list of persons and Exs. B10 to B15 are the Xerox copies of some of the sale deeds. The delay from 20.1.1991 to 13.12.1991 i.e., a period of nearly 11 months was due to delay in approval of the final lay out by the Town Planning Authorities. After the final lay out was received on 15.7.1991, the opposite parties immediately took steps for re-survey, widening and reformation of the roads according to the approved lay out. It took nearly a period of three months and the complainants were thereafter informed about the allotment of number of plots by drawal of lots and such drawal was made in the presence of elders on 13.12.1991. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are satisfied that within a period of five months after final approval of lay out by the Town Planning Authorities, the opposite parties offered registration of the plots. As they have to re-survey, widen the roads and alien the plots, it took the for doing the same. It therefore cannot be said that there is any avoidable delay on the part of the opposite parties. The submission of the complainants that in case of delay, according to the terms and conditions of the scheme, the complainants are entitled for refund of the amount is not supported either by the terms and conditions of the scheme or by any correspondence between the parties. The contention of the complainants that the opposite parties has no title to the plots cannot be accepted as the documents Exs. B21 to B28 show that the opposite parties have prima facie title and in fact there was no claim at all by any third parties disputing the title of the opposite parties. The contention of the complainants that the lay out only 451 plots are shown, while as there as 900 members and it is therefore not possible to allot a plot to each member is also not sustainable. Ex. B4 and Ex. A-12 show that 451 are the total number of plots measuring 40 ft. x 60 ft, while as each plot agreed to be sold under the scheme is only 20 ft. x 60 ft. Thus all the members can be allotted plots. It is submitted that appellant/first opposite party is ready and willing to register the plots to the complainants on their paying the balance if any payable to the appellant. Hence they cannot be directed to refund the consideration paid by the complainants to the opposite parties towards the purchase of plots. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaints are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we allow the appeals and set aside the orders of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs throughout. Appeals allowed.