w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mr.G.V. Ramanaiah v/s M/s Crystal Agritech Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.K. Murali Mohan

    FA.No.1009 of 2007 AGAINST C.C.No.722 of 2006 DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD.

    Decided On, 01 February 2010

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D. APPA RAO
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, SMT.M. SHREESHA
    By, MEMBER & SRI R. LAKHSMI NARASIMHA RAO MEMBER

    Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.K. Visweswara Rao. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.D.V. Reddy



Judgment Text

Oral Order(Per Smt.M. Shreesha, Hon?ble Member)


Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.722/2006 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.


The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the opposite party approached the complainant in the month of December, 2005 and offered to sell plots in Dream land situated at Gollahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka State. In pursuance of the said offer, the complainant agreed to purchase plot No.39 admeasuring 2400 sft. i.e. 266.66 sq. yds. in Dream land situated at Gollahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka State and paid a total sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- through a cheque bearing No.837398 drawn on Andhra Bank, Malakpet, Hyderabad. After receipt of the cheque from the complainant, opposite party issued a receipt vide credit voucher No.013 dated 15-12-2005 advising the complainant to get ready for registration and promised the complainant to register the said plot as soon as the complainant is ready with registration amount. Thereafter the opposite party encashed the said cheque through his banker namely Canara Bank, Bangalore through (OSC No.7653) and at that time, the complainant insisted the opposite party to execute the sale deed in his favour but the opposite party promised the complainant that he will execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant whenever the complainant was ready for registration. Thereafter in the month of January, 2006, the complainant informed the opposite party that he was ready and requested for registration of the sale deed in respect of plot No.39 in Dream land situated at Gollahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka State as he already paid the total and entire cost of the plot. In turn, the opposite eparty requested the complainant to wait for some time and accordingly the complainant waited till the end of March, 2006 and thereafter requested the opposite party to execute the sale deed. But the opposite party postponed the same on one pretext or the other and therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice on 24-8-2006 and the said notice returned with an endorsement ?addressee refused hence returned to sendor?. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite party to execute the sale deed in his favour, to pay costs of Rs.32,000/- for the delay in execute of the sale deed together with damages and costs.


Opposite party filed counter stating that it is a public Limited company and was absolute owner of 19 acres 3 guntas of land at Gollahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka State. It submitted that it established Flori culture Farm in 17 acres 3 guntas of land at Gollahalli village and there remained 2 acres for the purpose of housing. The said 2 acres of land was divided into house lots each plot admeasuring 462 sft and it offered to sell each lot at the rate of Rs.2,31,000/- at the rate of Rs.500/- sft. It admitted that the complainant offered to purchase one lot bearing No.39 at Rs.2,31,000/- and the contract was concluded on 15-11-2005. Opposite party submitted that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and has to pay Rs.31,000/- towards balance of sale consideration and inpsite of repeated requests and demands, the complainant did not pay the balance sale consideration and hence the complainant committed breach of contract concluded on 15-11-2005 and lost his right to recover the advance money paid to them. It further submitted that as per the contract concluded on 15-11-2005 relating to immovable property situated at Gollahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka State are subject to jurisdiction of Hon?ble courts at Karnatake and the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The transaction between the complainant and the opposite party deals with the sale, transfer of immovable property situated in Karnataka State and therefore the complainant is not a consumer and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A12 and B1 and B2, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the transaction between the parties is with regard to immovable property and not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that there was balance amount to be paid and hence dismissed the complaint.


Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.


On perusal of the material on record, we are of the considered view that the District Forum has erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a ?consumer?. Keeping in view the judgement of the Apex court in III (1993) CPJ 7 NC in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. M.K.GUPTA we are of the view that this complainant falls within the definition of ?consumer? of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While we hold that the complainant is a consumer, now we address ourselves to the merits of the case that is whether the complainant is entitled for registration of the flat for which he has paid for. It is the complainant?s case that he purchased one plot bearing No.39 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- through a cheque bearing No. 837398 drawn on Andhra Bank, Hyderabad. The complainant submits that the opposite party issued a receipt vide credit voucher No.013 on 15-12-2005 asking the complainant to get ready for registration and the opposite party also encashed the cheque but when the complainant approached him repeatedly and also in the month of January,2006 but the opposite party did not execute the sale deed in respect of plot No.39. The complainant also got issued a legal notice on 24-8-2006 which was refused by the opposite party.


It is the case of the respondent/opposite party that the sale consideration is Rs.2,31,000/-. Ex.A1 is the brochure on which the complainant is relying on with respect to the lay out. The respondent contends that the appellant committed breach of contract and that he paid only an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as against Rs.2,31,000/- and therefore the complainant has to pay the balance amount of

Rs.31,000/- and in the absence of payment of this amount, it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on its behalf in not executing the sale deed.


We observe from the record that the breach of contract which the opposite party has contended is not supported by any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the complainant established his case that he has paid the sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- which is evidenced under Ex.A3, credit voucher issued by the opposite party states that for plot No.39, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. It does not state anywhere that there is any balance amount to be paid.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

When the complainant has established that he has paid the sale consideration and it is the contention of the opposite party that there is a balance of Rs.31,000/- left, the burden of proof shifts to the opposite party to establish his case which he did not prove by filing any documentary evidence. To reiterate in the absence of any evidence on record to state that the complainant has to pay the balance amount of Rs.31,000/-, we are of the considered view that the complainant has paid the entire sale consideration. Hence we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and direct the opposite party to execute the sale deed for plot No.39 and pay costs of Rs.5,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
O R