Veenus And S.V. Projects vs Saida Reddy

ALL these revision petitions arise out of a single order of learned State Commission and; hence, decided by a common order.

THESE revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners/OPs against the order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission '') in FAIA 2908-2914/2012 in F.A. No. 731 - 737/2012 - A. Saida Reddy Vs. M/s. Veenus & S.V. Projects & Anr. by which, application filed by the respondents for withdrawal of money was allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the complainants/respondents filed complaints before the District Forum, which were allowed and petitioners/OPs were directed to return original sale deed and pay Rs.10/- per sft. per month from 13.3.2011 along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the complaint. Petitioner filed appeal before the learned State Commission and learned State Commission passed the following order: "Heard both sides. The opposite party, the builder/developer preferred this appeal the order of the district forum directing him to pay Rs.10/- per square feet from 13.3.2011 together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party contended that in fact the order would not sustain, in the sense that they are ready to construct the apartments and therefore, the order was unjust. Equally the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the agreement was executed on 14.3.2008 and till now permission was not even obtained from GHMC. There was no progress in the construction of the apartments. At any rate, by issuing notice he had forfeited the deposit in terms of agreement. The District Forum has only ordered payment of Rs.10/- per square feet besides compensation and costs from 13.3.2011 apart from return of original sale deed. All these questions would be considered at the time of hearing. We do not intend to pre-judge the very issues raised by both sides, suffice it to say in the interests of justice a stay order can be passed which is equitable and just. In the circumstances, the opposite party is directed to deposit half of the amount awarded by the district forum which includes the statutory amount within one month from today before the A.P. State Commission. The learned counsel for the complainant requested that he be permitted to withdraw the said amount. Considering the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned counsel for the complainant can as well move an application for withdrawal of the amount, so that the same can be adjudicated on merits ".

COMPLAINANTS moved application for withdrawal of half of the amount awarded by the District Forum inclusive of statutory deposit made by the OPs. Petitioners contested application and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed withdrawal of amount lying with this Commission along with interest on furnishing undertaking that in case appeals are allowed, the amounts withdrawn will be re-deposited before the Commission.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned State Commission ought not to have allowed withdrawal of amounts deposited by the petitioners, as complainants have already forfeited Rs.5,00,000/- towards refundable deposit and Rs.7,00,000/- towards non-refundable deposits and further submitted that if appeals of the petitioners are allowed by the learned State Commission, it would be difficult for the petitioners to recover this amount from the complainants/respondents. As such, learned State Commission has committed error in passing impugned order, which may be set aside.

LEARNED State Commission stayed operation of the impugned order passed by District Forum subject to depositing half of the amount awarded by the District forum. In compliance to this order, OP deposited amount. Learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed withdrawal of the amount lying with this Commission subject to furnishing undertaking to refund of money in case appeals are allowed.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners admitted that so far construction activity has not started on the site and in such circumstances, order permitting withdrawal of amount deposited by OP cannot be said to be unreasonable order, particularly, when order has been passed subject to furnishing undertaking in case appeals are allowed, complainants will re-deposit amount with the Commission. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.