BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
FA NO.5 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.999 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Nunna Nageswara Rao
S/o Venkateswarlu (late)
Aged 35 years, R/o Plot No.127,
Flat No.203, Sai Residency,
Jaya Nagar, KPHB Colony,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500 072.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.6 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1006 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Yatam Naga Gayatri Devi
W/o Srinivas Rao Yatam, aged 35 years,
Plot No.302, Flat No.302, Sai Anusha
Residency, Anjaneya Nagar,
Moosapet, Hyderabad – 500 018.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.7 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1018 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Mylavarapu Bala Rama Lakshmi
W/o M.Viswanadha Sastry,
Aged 61 years, R/o Plot No.59,
Anandh Bagh, Malkajgiri,
Hyderabad – 500 047.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.8 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1005 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Vanitha Anchuri W/o Kalyan Anchuri,
Aged 31 years, R/o Plot No.115,
Phani Plaza, Flat No.202,
Secretariat Colony, Puppalguda,
Hyderabad – 500 089.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.9 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1076 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Kapiti Kamakshi
W/o Sri Babu Rao Kapiti,
Aged 48 years, R/o Plot No.80/A,
Anjanadri Nagar Colony,
Dammaiguda, ECIL, Hyderabad – 500 053.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.10 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1027 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Rachakula Aruna
W/o R.Viswaroopa Chary,
Aged 63 years, R/o HIG-50,
R.K. Enclave, Flat No.103,
6th phase, KPHB Colony,
Hyderabad – 500 085.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.11 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1152 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Korla Madhavi
D/o Ramakrishna Korla,
Aged 32 years, R/o Plot No.G-03,
Sai Swapna Residency,
Sai Bhagwan Colony,
Beeramguda, Hyderabad – 502 032.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.12 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1017 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Nagamani Nagula W/o Sridhar Nagula,
Aged 39 years, R/o Plot No.206,
Avanthi Nagar, Erragadda,
Hyderabad – 500 018.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.13 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1091 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
1) Sangam Shiva Prasad
Sangam Omprakash, aged 34 years,
2) Sangam Sampurna Devi
W/o Sangam Omprakash, aged 53 years,
3) Sangam Vishwamurthy
S/o Sangam Omprakash, aged 31 years,
All are R/o Plot No.MIG-130, Sri Guru Krupa,
Opp: Andhra Bank, Mayuri Nagar,
Miyapur, Hyderabad – 500 049.
…Appellants/Complainants
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.14 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1096 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
S.V.Chalapathi Rao
S/o late S.Rangaiah, aged 42 years,
R/o 11-10-36, Flat No.205,
Sri Ram Sahithi Nest, Road No.2,
SBI Colony, Nagole Road,
Kothapet, Hyderabad – 500 035.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.15 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.947 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Boddapati Venkata Satya Surya
Narayana Murthy S/o Mamilla Sastry,
R/o H.No.2-151, Kovvada,
Near Kalyana Mandapam,
Kakinada – 533 006.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.16 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1022 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Naga Srinivas Rayana
S/o Rama Mohana Rao Rayana,
Aged 35 years, R/o Plot No.206,
Avanthi Nagar, Erragadda,
Hyderabad – 500 018.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.17 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1152 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Korla Madhavi
D/o Ramakrishna Korla,
Aged 32 years, R/o Plot No.G-03,
Sai Swapna Residency,
Sai Bhagwan Colony,
Beeramguda, Hyderabad – 502 032.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.18 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1021 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Sailaja Rani Rayana
W/o Naga Srinivas Rayana,
Aged 34 years, R/o Plot No.206,
Avanthi Nagar, Erragadda,
Hyderabad – 500 018.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.19 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1095 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Punnam Rama Rao
S/o China Venkat Ratnam,
Aged 51 years, R/o Plot No.47,
H.No.24-1078/1-D, PP Nagar,
Gajularamaram, Qutbullapur mandal,
Rangareddy district, Hyderabad-500 055.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.20 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1043 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Keshaboina Sammaiah
S/o K.Rajaiah, aged 42 years,
R/o H.No.8-3-293/82/B/94/A/1,
Road No.10C, Gayathri Hills,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.21 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1044 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Sri Saaga Ramesh S/o Sri Cheralu,
Aged 37 years, R/o H.No.5-11-1323,
Hanuman Nagar, KUC X-Road,
Hanumakonda, Warangal.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.22 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1123 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Yarlagadda Sivaramanjaneyulu
W/o Y.Subba Rao, aged 55 years,
R/o Plot No.1691, Sri Soudha,
Flat # 301, Doctors’ Enclave,
Pragathi Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 090.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.23 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1019 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Vasamsetty Sathyaveni
W/o Vasamsetty Ramesh,
Aged 42 years, R/o H.No.18-508,
Mallikarjuna Nagar, Malkajgiri,
Hyderabad – 500 047.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.24 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1004 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
1) Sri Manikyala Gnaneswara Rao
S/o M.Appa Rao, aged 46 years,
2) Sri Manikyala Shanmukha Raju
S/o M.Appa Rao, aged 44 years,
Both R/o Flat No.305, Srinivasa Heights,
Jawaharnagar, Moula-Ali,
Secunderabad – 500 040.
…Appellants/Complainants
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.31 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1165 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Hari Kumar Chintapatla
S/o Lakshmi Narayana Murthy,
Aged 38 years, R/o H.No.1-46/5/A,
Veerabhadra Nilayam, Shankar Nagar,
Chanda Nagar Post, Hyderabad-500 050.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
FA NO.32 OF 2017 AGAINST CCSR NO.1164 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
1) Chintapatla Naga Yegneswara Rao
S/o Ch.Lakshmi Narayana Murthy,
Aged 40 years, Occ: Employee,
2) Chintapatla Hemalatha
W/o Ch.Naga Yegneswara Rao,
Aged 41 years, Occ: Housewife,
Both R/o 1-46/5/A, Veerabhadra Nilayam,
Shankar Nagar, Chanda Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500 050.
…Appellants/Complainants
And
M/s V.V.R. Housing India Pvt., Ltd.,
206 & 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/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
and
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Twenty Sixth day of April
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
1) These batch appeals are preferred by the complainants against the orders of the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad dated 29.11.2016 in rejecting the complaints filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and barred by limitation.
2) Though separate orders were passed in each of these complaints filed by the complainants, in the light of the fact that common questions of fact and law arise, we deem it fit to dispose of by a common order. We narrate the facts in FA No.7/2017 as lead case for better appreciation.
3) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
4) It is the case of the complainant that the Opposite party is running real estate business. On 21.12.2012, the complainant purchased the vacant site of 200 square yards bearing Plot No.287 in Sy.No.23/A1, 23/A2, situated at Bachupally Paradise at Nalthur village and Gram Panchayat, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak district, by paying a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- to the Opposite party. In token of receipt of sale consideration, the Opposite party stated to have executed the sale deed in her favour but failed to deliver the possession of the flat in spite of repeated requests and demands. Hence, sought for refund of the amount paid together with interest and costs.
5) Basing on the above claim, before taking the complaint on file, the forum below had passed orders on the admissibility of the complaint as regards the pecuniary jurisdiction and limitation, without even causing notice to the Opposite party and thereby rejected the complaint. It is this order which is assailed in the above appeals contending that the forum below failed to consider the documents brought on record in proper perspective and rendered its findings. The forum below failed to appreciate the fact that the Opposite party promised to provide the facilities such as 60’/50’/40’ black top roads, avenue plantations, running water pipe lines, open drains, plantation, barbed wire fencing, gates to the plots, electricity lines, street lighting, water sump, etc., which they failed to and that there is no development at all for long years.
6) It is also the case of the Appellants that the Respondent by making such assurances in the form of brochure lured and attracted the gullible consumers and later-on resorted to unfair trade practice and deficient services by not providing the amenities. As such, the same is a continuing cause of action. On failure to comply with the agreed terms in the brochure, the complainants sought for refund of amount claiming interest @24% per annum and also the damages. By taking the sum total of interest and the compensation as an aggregate, the forum below passed orders of rejection and further rendering its finding that the complaints are barred by limitation in view of the fact that the transaction took place in the year 2012 whereas the complaints are filed after lapse of four years.
5) We may state here that no notices were ordered to the Respondent before passing orders and on its own notion; the forum below had passed the orders which are impugned in this appeal. Instead of rejecting the complaints, the forum below ought to have returned the complaints for compliance since the complaints were filed by parties-in-person, who were not acquainted with the technicalities so as to enable them to comply the objections.
6) In the appeal, the learned counsel for the Appellants would contend that the Respondent failed to adhere to the promises and assurances made in the brochure and failed to develop the plots as promised. Even no numbers were assigned to the plots and there is no development at the site, which resulted in seeking refund of amount. Further, it is the specific case of the appellants that by letters dated 05.05.2012 and 16.06.2012, the Respondent in clear terms admitted that the developments in Bachupally Paradise Phase II is delayed for long time due to some internal technical problems and they would be completing the plotting and road cuttings within 15 days. This part of admission on the part of the Respondent is suffice to say that there is no development at the project site and the roads are yet to be formed. All these averments would come to the fore only when an opportunity is given to the opponent to put-forth its defence. Admittedly, at the admission stage itself, the complaints were rejected for the reasons stated supra. There is no record to vouchsafe that the plots are developed as promised, as such, it is a continuing cause of action.
7) We may further state that whatever be the compensation and interest that being claimed by the complainants, it is the pure discretion of the courts to decide and grant interest and compensation as per the facts and circumstances of each case. Again, there is no rule of thumb. In the above regard, the counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on the following citations.
i) Judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi rendered in the matter of G.Mohiuddin Vs. ABS Land Development and Constructions, reported in IV-2016 CPJ 621 NC, wherein it was held that aggregate value of goods agreed to be paid by consumer and amount claimed as compensation will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction.
ii) Judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi rendered in the matter of Anshu Shrivastava & Anr Vs. Unitech Ltd., reported in IV (2016) CPJU 462 (NC), wherein it was held that aggregate of the amounts claimed forms the pecuniary jurisdiction.
iii) Judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi reported in 2005 (2) CPR 1 NC, wherein it was held that the cause of action is a continuing one till the possession of the plot is delivered with all amenities.
iv) Judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in WP No.30394 of 2011 reported in CDJ 2012 APHSC 421, wherein it was observed that where the amenities as promised are not provided, it can be construed as continuous cause of action and cannot be said to be barred by time.
v) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 (2) CPJ 3 SC, wherein it was observed that the complainants are entitled for refund of amount and compensation after reconveying the sale deed and the registration charges shall be borne by the developer, when there is a failure on the part of the developer to develop the plots as per the brochure/agreement.
vi) Another Judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi rendered in Fa No.890 of 2012 in the matter of Sreemitra Developers Pvt., Ltd., Vs. K.Venkateswara Rao, wherein it was held that since developers failed to provide the amenities as per the brochure, the developer is liable to refund the amount along with interest and compensation.
We find ourselves in complete agreement with the views endorsed by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the complaints are not barred by limitation. Be that as it may, the complaints are filed by the complainants as parties-in-person without any assistance from a legal procedure knowing person.
8) For the reason that the Appellants claimed interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount and huge amount of compensation, the forum below construed that if the same are computed, it will oust its pecuniary jurisdiction. In this context, we may state that the question of interest and compensation are not yet decided and the notice is not yet issued to the Respondent to put-forth its claim/defence and we may state that the interest and compensation is not to be counted at this stage. All these facts are to be considered when the defence story comes to the fore. In this regard, we place our reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble National Commission rendered in the matter of Ritu Duggal and another Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt., Ltd., in CC No.1521 of 2015, decided on 01.02.2016. A similar case in a decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta, reported in SC & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (2005-2006), observing that in cases of this nature, the complaint was within the time limit as there was continuous cause of action.
9) Considering the consisting views expressed by the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the above aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the question of limitation would not arise, therefore, we are inclined to allow the appeals.
10) In the cases where the complaint is barred by limitation, what all required to be seen is to direct the complainants to file an application under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, more particularly, in the instant cases, when they are at admission stage and ought not to have rejected the complaints under any circumstance.
11) In the result, we allow the appeals and set aside the orders which are impugned. Accordingly, we direct the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad to register the complaints and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 26.04.2017
