STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 304 of 2017
AGAINST
SR .No. 998 of 2016, DISRICT FORUM I, HYDERABAD
Between :
Haseena Begum, W/o Patan Nazir Khan,
R/o H.No. 1-7-22/1, Qursheed Jahi Risala,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad – 500 020 .. Appellant/complainant
And
M/s. V.V.R. Housing India Private Limited
206 and 211, 2nd floor, Pavani prestige,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 500 016
Rep. by its Managing Director, V. Vasudeva Rao
s/o late Raja Rao, aged 48 years, R/o Hyderabad .. Respondent/opp.party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Gopi Rajesh and Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. A.V. V. Badari Narayana
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Monday, the Fourth Day of June
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 29/11/2016 made in SR No.. 998 of 2016 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM -1, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she purchased 400 sq. yards of site in plot nos. 772 and 773 in survey no. 280 situated in Bachupally paradise at Nalthur village and Gram Panchayat, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District from the opposite party for a sale consideration of Rs.6,10,000/- on 16.06.2012 and the opposite party executed sale deed on 30.06.2012. The opposite party issued assurance letter dated 26.09.2016 to hand over the plot or alternative plot till November, 20016 but did not do so. Hence the compliant to direct the opposite party to return the sale consideration of Rs.6,10,000/- together with interest @ 24% pa from 03.06.2012 till the date of realization, to pay compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- and costs.
4). Heard the complainant, party-in-person. The District Forum rejected the complaint at the S.R. stage itself on the ground that the complainant purchased the property on 16.06.2012 and filed the complaint on 06.10.2016, i.e., after four years from the date of cause of action and hence the complaint is barred by limitation and further the total amount comes to Rs.25,45,620, which is more than Rs.20,00,000/- , pecuniary jurisdiction.
5) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
6). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the grounds of appeal, rebuttal thereof, along with written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant.
7) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
8). Point No. 1 :
11) Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the District Forum below had passed orders on the admissibility of the complaint as regards the pecuniary jurisdiction and limitation without causing notice to the opposite party and thereby rejected the complaint. Further, the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the opposite party promised to provide the facilities such as, BT roads, avenue plantations, running water pipe lines, open drains, plantation, barbed wire fencing, gates to the plots, electricity lines, street lighting , water sump etc but they failed to do so. The respondent failed to comply with the agreed terms in the brochure and hence sought for refund of amount with interest @ 24% pa. By taking the sum total of interest and compensation as an aggregate, the Forum below passed orders of rejection and further rendering its finding that the complaint is barred by limitation in view of the fact that the transaction took place in the year 2012 whereas the complaint is filed after lapse of four years.
9). We may state here that no notices were ordered to the respondent before passing orders. Instead of rejecting the complaint, the Forum ought to have returned the complaint for compliance since the complainant is party in person who may not be able to acquaint with technicalities.
10). The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent failed to adhere to the promises and assurances made in the brochure and failed to develop the plots as promised. Further letter dated 26.09.2016 from the respondent/opposite party discloses that in case the company cannot clear the dispute till November, 2016 and the problem was not solved then the appellant/complainant can take any legal action and hence continuous cause of action continues.
11). We may further state that whatever be the compensation and interest that being claimed by the appellant/complainant, it is the pure discretion of the Courts to decide and grant interest and compensation as per the facts and circumstances. Following the Common order dated 26.04.2017 passed by us earlier in FA 5 of 2017 batch matters and the decisions rendered therein, we are of the opinion the appeal is liable to be allowed.
12). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that the appeal is liable to be allowed.
13). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 29/11/2016 made in SR No.. 998 of 2016 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM -1, Hyderabad. Accordingly, we direct the District Forum I, Hyderabad to register the complaint and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs..
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 04.06.2018.
