AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 15.10.2012, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 844/2011, M. Nagoor Rao vs. Sanjay Vithalrao Bhosale & Ors., vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Medak, dated 26.07.2011, in Consumer Complaint No. 40/2010, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.
The facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint are that the petitioner/complainant Sanjay Vithal Rao Bhosale approached the opposite party (OP-1) builder, M. Nagoor Rao for purchase of a residential flat in the residential complex, built over plot no. 86 to 90 in survey no. 802, 806 and 807 and entered into an agreement with him for the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 15,45,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards cost of car parking, transformer, Manjira water and lift etc. The complainant paid Rs. 1.5 lakhs for the said flat no. G-11, Ground Floor, built up area 1030 sq. ft. towards advance sale consideration at the time of entering into agreement and subsequently approached the OP-2, State Bank of India for sanction of housing loan of Rs. 13 lakhs. It has been alleged that the Bank sanctioned the said loan and released the amount of Rs. 13 lakhs on different dates, although the said flat had not been completed, in collusion with the OP-1 builder, without verifying the legality and authenticity of the documents. The agreement of sale as stated in the complaint had been entered vide number 11072 of 2008 on 11.06.2008 for a sale consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs. Subsequently, the sale deed was also registered on 30.07.2008 vide document number 11073 of 2008, showing the sale consideration as Rs. 5 lakhs. It is alleged that the figure of Rs. 5 lakhs was then changed to Rs. 14,90,000/- by tampering the record, even though the stamp duty had been paid for Rs. 5 lakhs only. The complainant alleged that the OP-1 had executed the agreement dated 11.06.2008 for finished flat, even though he had collected an amount of Rs. 14,50,000/- including Rs. 13 lakhs from the Bank. In this way, the OP-1 had collected an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs in excess, which should be paid back to him and credited to his loan account with the Bank.
It is further alleged that the area of the said flat on measurement was only 900 sq. ft., although the OP-1 had mentioned that the flat was measuring 1030 sq. ft. Further, the OP-1 had not provided the Manjira water and also not marked the area for car parking. Moreover, as per the agreement, the OP-1 was supposed to complete the construction within 15 months and on account of non-completion, the complainant had paid interest amounting to Rs. 2,49,507/- for 24 months and was also forced to stay in a rented premises for ten months with a rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The complainant also alleged that the OP-1 had erected a transformer outside the balcony of the complainant''s corridor, which had resulted in the reduction of the price of the flat by 25%. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. Interest on the loan for 24 months, Rs. 2,49,507/-.
Rent payable for non handing over of premises by OP No. 1 for 10 months @ Rs. 4000/-, total Rs. 40,000/-.
Reimbursement of difference of cost received by the OP No. 1 from OP No. 2 by way of loan Rs. 8,00,000/-. (Loan amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- minus consideration as per sale deed Rs. 5,00,000/-).
Difference of built up area as per physical measurement, 130.0 sq.ft. @ 1500/- per sq.ft., Rs. 1,95,000/-.
Damages for causing mental agony Rs. 2,00,000/-."
On the other hand, it is made out from the reply filed by the OP-1 builder that the total consideration for the finished flat as agreed with the complainant was Rs. 18,54,000/- and after including the sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs for car parking, electricity, Manjira water and lift etc., the total consideration was Rs. 20,04,000/-. It is made out that there was a separate development agreement made on 22.07.2008, which was unregistered, to complete the flat from semi-finished to finished state and the flat was to be completed by October, 2009. The OP-1 had been asking the complainant to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,54,000/- (Rs. 20,04,000/- - Rs. 14,50,000/-), but the complainant failed to pay the same and set up a false case to extract money from the complainant.
The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed refund of Rs. 8 lakhs to the complainants and further to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP-1 builder challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal having been allowed vide impugned order, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
During arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the OP-1 builder had failed to keep its promise of handing over the possession of the flat by October, 2009. The order passed by the District Forum was in accordance with law, because there was a comprehensive agreement dated 11.06.2008 between the complainant and OP-1 and no separate agreement could be considered, as the same was not registered. Moreover, the sale deed dated 30.07.2008 had also been executed in furtherance of the agreement dated 11.06.2008 and the same was meant for a finished flat. The order passed by the State Commission should, therefore, be set aside and the order passed by the District Forum restored. The sale consideration as stated in the agreement dated 11.06.2008 and the sale deed dated 30.07.2008, had already been paid by the complainant.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that there was a third agreement dated 22.07.2008 for conversion of the unfinished flat into a finished flat. The State Commission had, therefore, passed a well-reasoned order, bringing out clearly that the complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,54,000/- to the builder for purchase of the flat in finished condition. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law and should be upheld.
I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that there are three different documents which are important for a proper decision of the case in question. As per the registered agreement dated 11.06.2008, the total sale consideration of the flat has been stated to be Rs. 5 lakhs and an additional sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on account of car parking etc. has also been mentioned. There is a sale deed dated 13.07.2008 in respect of the flat executed between the parties, indicating the value of the flat as Rs. 5 lakhs. However, in the documents placed on record by the petitioner himself, there is an agreement dated 22.07.2008, which is an agreement for completion of the semi-finished flat. It has been stated therein that a sum of Rs. 13.54 lakhs is payable by the purchaser to the builder towards completion of work from semi-finished flat into finished one. The petitioner has not been able to indicate anywhere if the said agreement dated 22.07.2008 was not executed between the parties. The OP builder also sent a legal notice dated 08.04.2010 to the complainant, asking him to pay the balance amount of Rs. 5.54 lakhs. On behalf of the complainant, a reply to the said notice was given in which, it was stated that the complainant never entered into an agreement dated 22.07.2008. However, the complainants have not been able to provide any evidence to prove that the agreement dated 22.07.2008 was a false document.
In the light of the facts as stated above, it is held that the State Commission rightly brought out that the total cost of the finished flat was Rs. 20,04,000/- and the complainant was still required to pay the balance amount of Rs. 5,54,000/- to the builder. I, therefore, do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission and the same is upheld.
It may be observed, however, that both the parties in question had no reason to execute a sale deed, mentioning the value of the property as Rs. 5 lakhs only, whereas they had already entered into an agreement dated 22.07.2008, saying that the additional cost of converting unfinished flat to a finished flat would be Rs. 13.54 lakhs. It appears, therefore, that there is an intention to evade stamp duty on the part of both the parties. It has come on record that the stamp duty has been paid, considering the value of the flat as Rs. 5 lakhs only, whereas according to the builder, the total value of the flat was Rs. 20,04,000/-. A copy of this order be, therefore, sent to the District Collector, Medak with directions to carry out an investigation into the matter, in order to find out, whether there had been an attempt to evade the stamp duty as required to be paid as per law. The District Collector shall then take further necessary action in the matter, as per law.