BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

HYDERABAD.



F.A.No.72/2006 against C.D.No. 36/2003, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad .



Between:



Mr. Abdul Hameed Shaik,

S/o.Shaik Khasim Miah,

Aged about 50 years, Service,

R/o.7-2-49/5/A/16,

DNM Colony, Sanathnagar,

Hyderabad. …. Appellant/

Complainant

And



M/s. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority ,

Rep. by its Vice-Chairperson,

1-8-323, Paigah Palace,

Police Lines, Secunderabad. … Respondent/

Opp.party



Counsel for the appellant : M/s. V.Gourisankara Rao



Counsel for the respondent : M/s.B.Viswanath Reddy



CORAM : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.D.APPA RAO , PRESIDENT,

SMT M.SHREESHA , HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER



TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.



Oral Order : (Per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member. )

***



The appellant is the complainant in C.D.No.36/2003 before the District Forum-II, Hyderabad and the complaint was filed against the opposite party seeking direction to allot alternate plot towards the less and deficit area of the allotted plot no.85 , to pay Rs.15,50,940/- and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint partly directing the opposite party to pay market value of the deficit area of plot that was allotted as against total extent of 362 sq. mtrs.



Aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant has raised various contentions questioning the legality and propriety of it.



The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was issued with a letter dt. 5.3.1990 allotting HIG plot no.78 admeasuring 362 sq. mtrs @ Rs.180/- per sq. mtr. and he paid Rs.65,250/- . As per the terms of allotment agreement complainant has to construct the house in the plot , but when he went to take possession of plot , it was found that the plot was full of rocks and boulders which was not fit to make house construction. In the mean while he applied to the bank for sanction of loan and he has to make payment for repayment of his loan . On representation of the complainant the opposite party allotted another plot no. 85 vide letter dt. 17.7.1993 but its extent was only 278.20 sq. mts. as against original allotment of 362 sq.mts. plot for which full amount was paid by him. The complainant requested to allot plot no.210 , but the opposite party failed to allot it. Legal notice dt. 30.7.2002 was issued by the complainant to the opp.party. to pay value of the deficit area of plot or alternatively allot additional plot for the deficit area in plot no.85. The opp.party gave a reply dt. 16.8.2002 stating that they are not liable to pay any amount as they have allotted the said plot on the basis of “as is where is basis” . Hence the complainant filed complaint.



The opposite party in its version while admitting the allotment of plot to the complainant stated that the opp.party was not at fault for the delay in delivery possession of the plot . Inspite of plot no. 78 HIG , alternate plot no.85 HIG was allotted in the year 1993 but the complainant had not made any correspondence in the matter and he approached them only after issue of possession letter on 5.5.1999. There is no possibility to increase the area of plot no.85 HIG as per grounds position . Hence the request of the complaint to increase the extent of the plot could not be considered. The terms and conditions of the agreement are very clear in this aspect vide conditions 4,7,8 & 15 . In order to settle the matter the opposite party had asked the complainant for allotment of shortfall area in LIG plots for which he did not agree. At last the opposite party had agreed to refund the cost of the deficit area to an extent of Rs.15,174/- @ market value of Rs.180/- per sq. mtr. and it was accepted by the complainant and he asked to register the plot no.85 HIG vide his letter dt. 2.8.2000. Hence the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.



During enquiry the complainant filed Exs.A1 to A33 along with evidence affidavit and as rebuttal evidence opposite parties have filed Exs.B1 to B5 . On the basis of evidence on record the District Forum gave finding that as per the terms and conditions of Ex.B1 agreement in case of change in size of plot due to site conditions the cost will be proportionately reduced or increased as the case may be. Further dimensions , size and number of plots offered for allotment on sale are subject to change. So allotment of plot is on “ as is where is basis” and no representations will be entertained for exchange of plots or for extension of time for payment. In view of the said conditions it was found that the opposite party was justified in refunding a sum of Rs. 15,174/- towards the cost of deficit area i.e. 84.30 sq. mts. . Though the opposite party offered the said amount, the complainant failed to receive it . Consequently the complainant is entitled to only for a sum of Rs.15,174/- from the opposite party .



It is to be seen from the record that the allotment was commenced in the year 1990 and thereafter the matter dragged on for a long time as seen from the correspondence exchanged between the parties covered by Exs.A1 to A33. Atlast the complainant under protest had agreed to take alternative plot no.85 of an extent of 278.20 sq. mtrs. as against 362 sq. mts. Having accepted the allotment and obtained registered sale deed the relief claimed for allotment of alternative plot for an extent of 362 sq. mts. is not sustainable. Having accepted the plot he ought to have taken the market value at Rs. 15,174/- @ Rs.180/- offered by the opposite party but the complainant himself had delayed to receive it.



The complainant had claimed a sum of Rs. 15,50,940/- towards the loss incurred on account of delay in allotment of plot which is not at all substantiated . He has not filed any evidence to show as to when he was sanctioned with the loan and to what extent he paid loan amount . Apart from it he cannot claim any anticipatory losses on account of delay in getting allotment and registration finalized. The District Forum after considering pros and cons had rightly passed the order holding that the complainant is entitled for refund of amount of Rs.15,174/- being market value of deficit area of 84.30 sq. mts. which was prevailing by then.



In the result appeal is dismissed confirming order dt. 18.7.2005 passed in C.D.No.36/2003 by the Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad. In the circumstances each party to bear their own costs.





PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER

Dt.17.3.2009