D.BALAKRISHNA RAO Vs. NARNE ESTATE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant who filed the appeal against the challenging the order of the District Forum-II, Hyderabad whereof the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant paid a sum of Rs.10,150/- through cheque dated 30.9.1992 to the respondents which allotted him membership no.9545. The appellant had made payment through cheques towards the balance cost of the plot. The respondent informed the appellant through letter dated 1.7.1993 that the plot no.17, 18 admeasuring 500 sq.yards in block CC under Sector IV of East City were allotted to him. Subsequently, the respondent had reduced the area of the plot to 250 sq.yards allegedly on account of technical problems and re-allotted plot no.18(CP) in block CC under Sector IV of East City. The respondent through letter dated 30.4.1996 informed the appellant that they will indicate schedule of development charges payable by the appellant in respect of the plot. The respondent has not informed the schedule of payment of development charges. On 13.5.2006 the respondent had informed the appellant that they have cancelled the plot allotted to him as he had committed default in payment of development charges and a cheque for Rs.25,000/- was sent towards the refund of the amount that was paid by the appellant in the year 1992. The appellant had paid entire cost of the plot admeasuring 250 sq.yards on 23.4.1993, the respondent was obligated to execute registered sale deed in favour of the appellant and instead delayed the same on one pretext or the other as developing the land. The respondent through their letter dated 30.5.2006 informed the appellant stating therein that some other letters were purported to have been sent to the appellant with a demand for payment of development charges. The appellant has got issued legal notice dated 27.6.2004 in response of which the respondent did neither give any reply nor did it execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.

(3.) The respondent resisted the claim contending that the appellant had paid Rs.10,000/- at the time of booking the plot. On the request of the appellant, plot Nos.17 and 18 were allotted to him in the East City developed by the respondent. The cost of the two allotted parts was Rs.50,000/-. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- through cheque dated 2.1.1993 and another Rs.10,000/- through cheque dated 2.2.1993 towards the instalments. Thus the two cheques were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the appellant. By the month of July 1993 the appellant has paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- and he had to pay two instalments of Rs.2,500/-. The respondent through letter dated 27.12.1993 requested the appellant to clear the dues. In view of the default committed by the appellant, the respondent reduced the two allotted plots to one plot of 250 sq.yards. As per the terms and conditions of the membership form the appellant has to pay 10% additional amount on the cost of the plot as the plot allotted to him was a corner plot. The appellant has to pay Rs.27,500/- and an amount of Rs.100/- per sq.yard towards development charges. The respondent addressed another letter dated 11.5.1995 that the development charges were due from the appellant. Unless the development charges are paid, the appellant cannot be said to have paid total cost of the plot. The appellant is not entitled for registration of the sale deed. The allotment of the appellant was cancelled. The respondent refunded the amount without deducting any service charges. The cancellation of the allotment was done according to the terms and conditions stated in the membership form. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The appellant has filed his affidavit in support of his case and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the respondent Exs.B1 to B11 were filed. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint opining that the appellant had committed default in payment of instalments and development charges. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from infirmity of misappreciation of fact or law?