M/S. SAI PRIYA ESTATES Vs. VVL SUJATHA D/O. LT. SRI V. LAKSHMI NARAYANA
LAWS(NCD)-2021-1-16
NCDRC
Decided on January 25,2021

M/S. Sai Priya Estates Appellant
VERSUS
Vvl Sujatha D/O. Lt. Sri V. Lakshmi Narayana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The present Revision Petition u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act") has been filed by the Opposite Party, M/s. Sai Priya Estate, against the order, dated 07.11.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (for short, "the State Commission") whereby the First Appeal No. 278 of 2017 preferred by them u/s 27A of the Act has been dismissed.
(2.) The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum III, Hyderabad (for short, "the District Forum") has allowed the Consumer Complaint Case No. 1026 of 2007 filed by the Respondent/Complainant with the following directions:- "1. The Complainant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six Lakh only) from out of Caution Deposit amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the credit of this C.C. on or before 28.12.2009 and further directed the Complainant to pay the remaining balance of the Caution Deposit amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh only) at the time of handing over the flats i.e. 45% share by the Opposite Party to her. 2. The Opposite Party upon deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- representing Caution Deposit amount by the Complainant to the credit of this C.C. is directed to construct the pending works and complete the construction of the building complex within 4 months commencing from 29.12.2009 and after completion of the building, both of them have to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on selection of flats between the Complainant and the Opposite party in the ration of 45% and 55% respectively as per Clause 3 of the Development Agreement dated 01.06.2003. 3. The Opposite Party is further directed to deposit the rent @ Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per month to the credit of this C.C. from March, 2006 till December, 2009 and continue to deposit the rent at the rate every month till the construction of the building is completed. 4. The Opposite Party is not entitled to recover the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) which is said to have been lent to the Complainant, as it is outside the purview of the Ex.A1 Development Agreement dated 01.06.2003. The Opposite Party is so advised is entitled to seek his redressal through proper Forum for recovery of the amount from the Complainant. 5. In so far as, the amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be payable by the Opposite Party during the period of construction of the building is concerned, no finding can be given as the Complainant did not ask that relief. However, the Complainant admitted that the Opposite Party paid Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) till March, 2006 can be amicably settled at the time of execution of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) after completion of the entire construction of the building."' In view of the reasons stated on the point No. 1 to 5 and also taking into the total facts and circumstances of case, there are some latches on the part of the Complainant as well as Opposite Party in completion of the construction of the building and further in order to maintain harmonious relationship between the parties in future so as to reach the finality of the lis inter-se, we are of the view that there is no need to award any compensation to the Complainant. However, the Complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs and the rest of the claims claimed by the Complainant is dismissed. The above order is to be complied with as per direction given supra.""
(3.) The Petitioner/Opposite Party as well as the Respondent/Complainant challenged the Order dated 09.12.2009 passed by the District Forum in C.C. No.1026/2007, before the State Commission. First Appeal No. 208 of 2010 was filed by the Opposite Party and the First Appeal No. 316 of 2010 was filed by the Complainant. State Commission after a detailed discussion on record, disposed of both the appeals by giving following directions: - "(1) That the tenant by name Sri Brij Gopal be made as a proforma O.P. No.2 in C.C. 1026/2007 by amending the cause title. So also in the appeals which are to be carried out by the parties. (2) That the OP/Builder shall demolish the old structure in South-East corner of schedule property and proceed with the construction by completion of 10% work and deliver 45% share of flats to the complainant within three months of the demolition of the old structure. (3) That the OP/Builder is permitted to take the help of Police in case he was resisted either by Brij Gopal or his representative from demolishing the old structure. He may apply to the Registry for issuing a requisition to the concerned police for demolition of the old structure and complete the remaining work as directed. (4) That the complainant is entitled for rent @ Rs.7,000/- for the period from 21.7.2005 to 19.10.2006 only. Rent due and payable to be worked out from the amount already withdrawn by the complainant. (5) That the complainant shall return half of refundable deposit of Rs.6 Lakhs on delivery of 45% share of her flats." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.