State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1. M/S. Janachaitanya Housing P, Ltd., vs 1. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma on 5 June, 2017Cause Title/Judgement-Entry 	    	       STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  Telangana             First Appeal No. A/681/2014  (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/08/2014 in Case No. cc/516/2012 of District Hyderabad-II)             1. 1. M/s. Janachaitanya Housing P, Ltd.,  Rep.by its CMD Sri M. Sudhakar, Occupation Business, C/o. Vamsi Estates III, 2nd Floor, Opposite Big Bazar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500 016.  2. 2. M/s. Janachaitanya Housing P, Ltd.,  Rep. by its Branch Manager, Sri Ravindra Babu, Occupation Employee, O/o. D.No. 6-3-802, IInd Floor, Zainab Commercial Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500016 ...........Appellant(s)   Versus      1. 1. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma  S/o. Lt. Col. Dr. V. Vishwakarma, 407, D.V. Apartments, Salarjang Colony, Kakatiya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Tolichowki Road, Hyderabad 500 008  2. 2 Mrs. Mohini  W/o. Dr.Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma,
S/o. Lt. Col. Dr. V. Vishwakarma, 407, D.V. Apartments, Salarjang Colony, Kakatiya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Tolichowki Road, Hyderabad 500 008
  3. 3. M/s. Janachaitanya Housing P, Ltd.,  Rep.by its RDGM, Shri MD. Satar, Occupation Employee, O/o. D.No. 6-3-802, IInd Floor, Zainab Commercial Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500 016. ...........Respondent(s)       	    BEFORE:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT    HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER          For the Appellant:  For the Respondent:    Dated : 05 Jun 2017    	     Final Order / Judgement    

BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD

 

 

 

F.A.No. 681 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.516 OF 2012 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-III  HYDERABAD

 

 

 

 

 

 Between

 

 

 
	 M/s Janachaitaya Housing (P) Ltd.,


 

Rep. by its CMD M.Sudhakar

 

Occ: Business C/o Vamsi Estates-III

 

2nd Floor, Opp: Big Bazar, Ameerpet

 

Hyderabad-500016

 

 

 
	 M/s Janachaitanya Housing (P) Ltd.,


 

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

 

Ravindra Babu, Occ: Employee

 

O/o Dr.No.6-3-802, II Floor

 

Zainab Commercial Complex

 

Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500016

 

Appellants/opposite parties

 

  

 

          A N D

 

 

 

 

 
	 Dr.Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma


 

S/o Lt.Col.(Dr.)V.Vishwakarma

 

407, D.V.Apartments, Salarjang Colony

 

Kakatiya Nagar, Mehdipatnam

 

Tolichowki Road, Hyderabad-500008

 

 

 
	 Mrs Mohini W/o Dr.Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma


 

407, DV Apartments, Salarjang Colony

 

Kakatiya Nagar, Mehdipatnam

 

Tolichowki Road, Hyderabad-500008

 

 

 

                                                                   Respondents/complainants

 

 

 
	 M/s Janachaitanya Housing (P) Ltd.,


 

Rep. by its RDGM, Shri MD Sattar

 

Occ: Employee, O/o Dr.No.6-3-802

 

II Floor, Zianab Commercial Complex,

 

Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500016

 

(R3 is a formal party)

 

                                                          Respondent/opposite party no.3

 

 

 

 

 

Counsel for the Appellants                          Sri M.Srinivas Swarup

 

Counsel for the Respondent No.1&2           Party in person    

 

 

 

QUORUM             :

 

 

 

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT

 

&

 

SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBERMONDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE

 

TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

 

 

Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President)

 

***

 

 

 

 

 

          This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties aggrieved by the     orders of District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad   dated 22.08.2014 made in CC No.516 of 2012 in partly allowing the complaint directing the opposite partiesno.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.10,74,002/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 25.07.2010 till realization together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.2.                For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.3.               The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainants lured with the attractive and deceptive words of the opposite parties have joined as members of opposite party no.1 through application dated 02.05.2008.   The opposite parties have allotted plot no.145 in Sai Nagar Extension, Phase II admeasuring 336 sq.yds.  The opposite parties have issued passbooks no.31 and 32 to the complainants.  The complainants have paid Rs.7,74,002/- in 14 instalments.  As the opposite parties cannot get approval of layout for Sai Nagar Extension Phase II project and as there was no development in the said project, the complainants have made several requests to the opposite parties to allot alternate plot in the adjoining venture.  The opposite parties have allotted plot No.630 admeasuring 360 sq.yds in Sai Satabdi Venture and the complainants were asked to pay additional amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.  After receipt of the said amount the opposite parties have changed the plot from 630 to 629.   Though the complainants have paid Rs.10,74,002/- the opposite parties have executed the sale deed showing market value at Rs.2,70,000/-.  When the complainants with an intention to construct house visited the site they found that there was no development at the site.  Subsequently the complainants have received legal notice dated 14.06.2011 from the third parties wherein they were informed that the plot in question is in litigation and a case was pending in a court of law.  Hence, the complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to allot alternative residential west facing plot admeasuring 360 sq.yds in other part of the Sai Satabdi Venture with all developments and amenities or alternatively to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.10,74,002/- with interest together with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs.4.                 The opposite parties resisted the case contending that though the Sai Nagar Extension Phase II Venture was fully developed, the complainants have requested to shift from Sai Nagar Extension Phase II to Sai Satabdi Venture and the same has been accepted by the opposite parties. The complainants have paid differential amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the plot No.629 but not 630.  The opposite parties executed sale deed in respect of plot no.629 on 24.12.2010.  The complainants on seeing the development works carried out by the opposite parties requested the opposite party no.1 to shift from Sai Nagar Colony Extension Phase II to Sai Satabdi Venture.  The opposite parties has developed 100 acres and got it registered in favour of the hundreds of customers after obtaining necessary premium from the authorities concerned.  The reliefs sought for by the complainants are under the specific relief Act and as such the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The complainants are not consumer and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.5.                 During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant no.1 filed his evidence affidavit and the documents Ex.A1 to A26 while on behalf of the opposite parties, the Senior Legal and Estate Officer has filed his affidavit and got Ex.B1   marked.6.                The District Forum after considering the material available on record, partly allowed the complaint bearing CC No.516 of 2012 by orders dated 22.08.2014  as stated in para 1 supra.7.               Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite party preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.   The District Forum thought directed the opposite parties for refund of the amount but failed to give any direction to re-convey the property in favour of the opposite parties.  There is  no injunction order is in force against the opposite parties for alienating the property but the District Forum is under impression that there is an injunction in force against the opposite parties.   Hence, the opposite parties prayed to allow the appeal.8.               Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.9.               The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?  To what relief ?10.              It is the complainants case that he opted to purchase a plot from the opposite parties venture by name Sai Nagar Extension Phase II Project and joined the scheme on 02.05.2008.  The opposite parties allotted plot no.145 and the complainant paid total sale consideration of Rs.7,74,002/- in instalments.  Subsequently as the approval of layout was not available and development of internal roads were not taking place,  the complainants shifted from Sai Nagar Extension to Sai Sathabdhi Venture and selected plot no.630 by paying differential amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.  Thereafter on the advice of the opposite parties the complainants have taken plot no.629/-.  While so the complainants received a legal notice dated 14.06.2011 from the third parties informing them that the said plot is in court litigation.  Therefore, the complainants have requested the opposite parties to allot alternative plot with a similar location or refund the amount with interest @ 12% per annum.11.              It is the case of the opposite parties that Sai Satabdhi Venture was fully developed with all amenities.  The third party claimed 55 acres of land.  Out of 1000 acres of land, the opposite parties have developed 100 acres of land and got registered the same to the customers.  The litigation has nothing to do with the plot of the complainant.  The reliefs sought for by the complainants falls under the specific relief Act and as such civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the complainant.12.              The complainant obtained membership for purchase of plot in the venture, floated by the opposite party. There has been no dispute in regard to payment made by the complainant and the opposite party has demanded certain amount which the complainant has paid and got the plot registered.   When the complainant intend to construct the house visited site and the found that there is no development at the site.  Therefore, the liability of the opposite parties to provide amenities and develop the plot under sale to the complainant is a consumer dispute as held by the Supreme Court inLucknow Development Authority Vs M.K.Guptaand recently the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/sNarne Constructions Pvt Ltd., Vs the Union of India and othersin W.P.Nos.28246 of 2009 and batch decided on 13.08.2010 wherein it was observed that Offering plots for sale to its members/customers with an assurance of development of infrastructure/amenities, lay out approvals etc. was a service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act and therefore be amenable to the jurisdiction of the fora established under the statute. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the opposite party filed S.L.P. (C) Nos.3499-3517 of 2011 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.13.               In the light of the above pronouncement of this Court the High Court was perfectly justified in holding that the activities of the appellant- company in the present case involving offer of plots for sale to its customers/members with an assurance of development of infrastructure/amenities, lay-out approvals etc. was a "service" within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act and would, therefore, be amenable to the jurisdiction of the fora established under the statute.14.              Having regard to the nature of the transaction between the opposite parties and its customers which involved much more than a simple transfer of a piece of immovable property it is clear that the same constituted "service" within the meaning of the Act. It was not a case where the opposite parties were selling the given property with all advantages and/or disadvantages on "as is where is" basis, as was the position inU.T. Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh and Ors.(2009) 4 SCC 660.15.              It is a case where a clear cut assurance was made to the purchasers as to the nature and the extent of development that would be carried out by the opposite parties as a part of the package under which sale of fully developed plots with assured facilities was to be made in favour of the purchasers for valuable consideration. To the extent the transfer of the site with developments in the manner and to the extent indicated earlier was a part of the transaction, the opposite parties had indeed undertaken to provide a service. Any deficiency or defect in such service would make it accountable before the competent consumer forum at the instance of consumers like the respondents.16.               Thus, the service rendered by the opposite party in the matter of sale of the plots in question for the purpose of the complainant to construct a house thereon is service and the complainant a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(o) and 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act and the point is answered in favour of the complainant.17.               The documents filed by the complainant clearly prove that the opposite parties have executed the sale deed knowing fully well that the plot no.629 in Survey No.725/P of Pochampalli Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District is in court litigation and that to the prohibitory order passed by the District Court, Nalgonda was in force.18.              It is the case of the opposite parties that the complainants having visited the site and satisfied themselves with the development works carried out by the opposite parties they requested the opposite partyno.1 to shift from Sai Nagar Colony Extension Phase II to Sai Satabdi Venture. It is the complainants' case that the opposite parties did not develop the land as promised for which he had waited for long years and had requested the opposite parties to refund the amount. The opposite parties did not file any documentary evidence to substantiate that development had taken place or at least it was in the process of development with respect to the facilities as promised. In the absence of any evidence, to establish that all facilities with respect to the promise were provided, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency of service and the District Forum has rightly directed for refund of the amount paid by them with interest, compensation and costs.  But the District Forum failed to direct the complainants to execute re-conveyance of the sale deed in favour of the opposite parties.    Hence, we direct the complainant to execute the re-conveyance of the sale deed in favour of the opposite parties and the registration charges are to be borne by the opposite parties.  Hence, the point framed at para No.8, supra, is answered accordingly in favour of the  opposite parties.In the result this appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum by directing the opposite parties no.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.10,74,002/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 25.07.2010 till realization together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-  within one month from the date of  this order.  On receipt of the said amount the complainants are directed to execute the re-conveyance of the sale deed in favour of the opposite parties and the registration charges are to be borne by the opposite parties.PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER

 

Dated:05.06.2017  

 

 

 

Kmk

 

                                                Appendix of Evidence

 

                                       Witnesses Examined

 

                                                     Nil

 

                                         Exhibits Marked

 

For complainant

 

Ex.A27        Passbooks

 

 

 

For opposite parties

 

NIL

 

PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER

 

              [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA]  PRESIDENT 
     [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO]  JUDICIAL MEMBER