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

M/s. Pardha Saradhi Real Estates Rep. by its Managing Partner P. Venkateshwarlu v/s Annapalli Kavya Teja

    F.A. 857 of 2009 against C.C. 127/2006, Dist. Forum, Nellore

    Decided On, 11 July 2011

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant : M/s. G. Prabhakara Sarma, Advocate. For the Respondent : M/s. A. Diwakar Rao, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party developer against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to localize the site as per the plan Ex. A2 register the same in favour of the complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he joined as a member in the venture floated by the appellant for sale of plots and accordingly he paid Rs. 12,000/-. He became successful prize winner in the draw of lots conducted by the appellant and therefore he was entitled to get the plot registered in his favour.

3) The appellant was set-exparte when an endorsement was made on the cover that he is continuously absent besides substitute service by way of paper publication in ‘Vaartha’ daily newspaper. Basing on the affidavit evidence and Exs. A1 pass book issued by the appellant to the complainant, Ex. A2 photostat copy of the plan and Ex. A3 letter of appellant to complainant the Dist. Forum directed the appellant to register the plot besides payment of compensation and costs etc., as stated above.

4) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the complainant had deliberately given wrong address when the pass book itself shows that its office is situated at No. 5, C-Block, Saikrishna Complex, Jonnalagaddavari Street, Nellore-1. The complainant had taken notice as though it is a resident of ‘Dhanalakshmipuram, Nellore’. Such a misleading address was given in order to obtain an ex-parte order. The complaint was filed 10 years after alleged cause of action. The Dist. Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation without there being any contest.

5) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

6) At the outset, we may state that the complainant, despite the fact that the address of the appellant was given in the very pass book Ex. A1 as situated at No. 5, C-Block, Saikrishna Complex, Jonnalagaddavari Street, Nellore-1 he deliberately noted in the complaint as M/s. Pardha Saradhi Real Estate, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Dhanalakshmipuram, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore. Naturally with this address no notice could be served on the appellant. It is not known how and where the complainant could get the address mentioned in the complaint, as address of the appellant. The complainant by getting an unserviceable notice cannot obtain an order.

Obviously the Dist. Forum did not either consider the question of limitation or any other aspect in the light of the fact that the appellant did not contest. The Dist. Forum ought to have verified when notice was returned without it being served, more so, when the address in Ex. A1 as stated above is different. This is eminently a fit case where the appellant should be given an opportunity to contest the matter, more so, in the light of the fact that the complainant had obtained the order, without getting the notice served by mentioning wrong address.

7) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently the matter is remanded to the Dist. Forum with a direction to give opportunity to the appellant to file wri

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

tten version, and afford opportunity to both parties to lead evidence. In view of the fact that the matter is very old, the Dist. Forum is directed to dispose of the matter within three months in accordance with law after giving all opportunities to both sides. Both parties are directed to appear before the Dist. Forum on 25.7.2011 without insisting on fresh notice. No costs.