Mr Mandal
There are numerous cases against Narne Estates before the Consumer Forum @ Hyderabad. I am enclosing a case law which are identical to your case. You may approach the consumer forum through an advocate against the errant company.
BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 182/2009 against C.C. 632/2007, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad
Between:
M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 1 Gunrock Enclave
Secunderabad-500 009
Rep. by its Chairman &
Managing Director
Col. N. Ranga Rao
S/o. N. V. Naidu *** Appellant/
Opposite Party
And
1). Smt. Sumitra Vilchety
W/o. Sri Ratnam V. Velichety
2) Ratnam V. Vilchety
S/o. Butchiramaiya
Age: 73 years
Retd. Employee.
Both are R/o. Plot No. 17,
Anupuram, AEE Co-Op .
Housing Society Ltd.
Hyderabad-500 062. . *** Respondents/
Complainants
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. K. B. Ramanna Dora
Counsel for the Resps: P.I.P.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K. SATYANAND , MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE EIGTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
This is an appeal preferred by M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd., against the order of the Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad in directing it to register the plot No. 30 & 31 in Sector- V, ZS block, East City, Hyderabad or in the alternative pay Rs. 1,63,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a., from November, 2002 together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
2) The case of the complainants in brief is that they have purchased Plot No. 30 & 31 in Sector-V, Block-ZS an extent of 250 sq.yds. each from the appellant. They had paid the entire cost of the plot of Rs. 75,000/- each as well as development charges at Rs. 75,000/- and registration charges except Rs. 1,000/- out of total registration charges of Rs. 14,000/- by November, 2002 itself. The appellant by letter Dt. 16.11.1995 assured that the development work would be completed by the end of 1998. However, it did not fulfil its promise. Later they sent fax messages as well as e-mails directing them to execute the sale deed but of no avail. Contrarily the appellant demanded additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards revised development charges and enhanced rates of registration charges without any justification. For five years they kept quiet and on that they issued legal notice informing that they were ready. Therefore they filed the complaint directing the appellant to register the above plots besides compensation and costs.
3) The appellant resisted the case. It alleged that the dispute does come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The complainants in fact failed to pay the instalments by due dates as per the terms of agreement, and therefore not entitled to any of the reliefs. The sale consideration consists of land cost, development charges for providing facilities like roads, electricity connection, water supply etc. besides registration charges as fixed by the government from time to time. More over on belated payments interest has to be collected. Plots were not offered by outright payment of sale price. Only on payment of development charges they are entitled to registration.
In June, 1997 while civil works were commenced the complainants were directed to pay development charges of Rs. 75,000/- @ Rs. 150/- per sq.yd for 500 sq.yds. by way of monthly instalments at Rs. 2,000/- . The complainants did not pay. It requested the complainants to clear off the dues amounting to Rs. 4,000/- with interest by letter Dt. 30.4.2000. The complainants had paid the principal amount, and on that as a goodwill gesture, it waived the interest. As there was escalation of land prices etc. an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was directed to be paid towards revised development charges. Since they did not pay, they were not entitled to any of the reliefs, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4) The complainants in proof of their case filed the affidavit evidence of the first complainant and got Exs. A1 to A11 marked. The appellant did not file affidavit evidence nor any documents to substantiate their plea.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the appellant did not execute the sale deed despite the fact that the complainants had paid the entire amount as per the agreement. It amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the Dist. Forum directed the appellant to execute the sale deed, and on failure refund the amount together with compensation and costs.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the fact or law in correct perspective. It did not consider any of the documents filed by it. In fact, the complainants did not adhere to the schedule for payment of amount. It could not have applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank reported in 2007 (6) SCC 1711 wherein general law governing the contracts were considered. The rates of material etc., have been increased tremendously and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact and law and liable to be set-aside?
8) At the out-set we may state that it is an undisputed fact that the appellant had sold plot No. 30 & 31 in the venture of the appellant on payment of entire cost of the plot at Rs. 75,000/- each besides development charges of Rs. 75,000/- each except Rs. 1,000/- out of registration charges of Rs. 14,000/- by November, 2002. It is too late a day to contend that the disputes does not attract the jurisdiction of consumer forum. In the light of decision of the Supreme Court in Fakir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies reported in (2008) 10 SCC 345 the consumer forum has jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
9) The appellant asserts that the amounts were not paid in time as per the schedule mentioned in the agreement. The appellant in fact alleges that it has filed the documents and the same was not even considered. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant did not even file its affidavit evidence nor any of the documents. It is a fleeting contention taken without substantiating the same. The fact remains that thought the project was commenced in the year 1994 and the entire sale consideration, and development charges as demanded by it was received by November, 2002 the appellant did not register the plots. In fact the very appellant by letter Ex. A2 admitted that amounts were paid. In April, 2007, the appellant slapped Ex. A3 notice for the first time, enhancing the development charges from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 1,25,000/- and alleged that the complainants had to pay Rs. 50,000/- more. This unilateral raise of amount under the guise of reassessment, without any proof as to the exact amount that was spent towards development charges cannot be held to be valid. It cannot go on raising the amounts without providing any data or the basis despite the fact that the entire cost of the plots, development charges, and registration charges were received. It is unethical and unjust.
10) As we have earlier stated the claim of Rs. 87,000/- by way of additional development charges, for the cost of plot at Rs. 75,000/-, where an amount of Rs. 75,000/- was already paid towards development charges is ex-facie unjust. Obviously, the appellant a private limited company was postponing the execution of sale deed, the agreement of which was entered into as long back as in 1995 about 14 years ago, taking advantage that the complainants are senior citizens viz., complainant No. 1 is aged about 64 years and complainant No. 2 is aged about 73 years. It is making them to take rounds the courts investing and utilizing the amounts for their business.
11) Though this is eminently a fit case directing registration of sale deed unfortunately the complainants themselves represented that they are unable to face the litigation with the corporate body, and they are willing abide by the order of the Dist. Forum for receiving the entire amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a., from November, 2002 till the date of realization. Unfortunately the complainants did not prefer any cross appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. They appeared in person, and also filed written arguments wherein at para 5 they stated that :
“We submit that we are senior citizens of this society and aged people and we are physically not in a healthy state and therefore are not in a position to prolong this litigation with the appellant/opposite party – a corporate body and hence we are willing to accept the order of Hon’ble Consumer Forum-II though it does not do full justice and close the litigation if the appellant/opposite party pay the entire amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- along with compensation and litigation costs with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from November, 2002 i.e., the last payment made by the complainants to till the date of realization.”
12) The learned counsel for the appellant without any compunction contended that awarding interest @ 18% p.a., was at higher side and it could have been at 12% p.a., and in support of his contention he relied on a decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Union of India reported in II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC) wherein interest was reduced from 18% to 12% on equitable grounds as the terms of brochure issued by the development authority did not make out express or implied contract for payment of interest.
13) The complainants who appeared in person contended that interest @ 18% would be proper since a meager compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded while the prices of plots were escalated beyond imaginable proportion. At present the cost is at about Rs. 4,000/- per square yard excluding the development charges and registration charges. No doubt they did not file valuation report., however, this Commission can take judicial cognizance that prices of plots in and around Hyderabad escalated beyond all proportions.
14) In fact the Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Brij Pal Sharma Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority reported in III (2005) CPJ 43 (SC) opined that grant of interest @ 18% p.a., by way of damages and compensation is justified. Their lordship referring to an earlier decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh reported in II (2004) CPJ 12 held by stating that “ in our view, irrespective of whether there was genuine reason to cancel or not, the monies must be returned with interest at the rate of 18%. We say so because it is clear that even if the body has not already floated another scheme on the same land it is clear that the body is going to derive great profit from the land and therefore compensating the allottee with interest @ 18% p.a. is just and fair.” Therefore granting of interest @ 18% p.a. was up held.
15) We may also mention herein that when the State Commission has reduced the interest from 18% to 12% the Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Soma Devi reported in 1(2005) CPJ 11 (SC) set-aside the finding and awarded interest @ 18% p.a. When consistently the Supreme Court has been awarding interest @ 18% p.a., in all these cases where refund of amount is ordered in cases where the dealings pertain to real estates, we do not see any reason for reducing the rate of interest.
16) When the very complainants intends to receive the amount and did not intend registration of plots, in view of unreasonable stand taken by the appellant in refusing to register the plots on one ground or the other right from November, 2002, we also do not intend to order execution of registered sale deed, more so, when the very complainants intends to receive the amount. The appellant has been utilizing the amount paid towards sale consideration for all these years at least from November, 2002. In the said circumstances awarding interest @ 18% p.a. is upheld.
17) An amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- is liable to be refunded @ 18% p.a. from 10.11.2002. When the complainants had filed the calculation memo calculating the interest up to 19.3.2009 and arrived at Rs. 1,86,485.04 though the complainants have requested to award more compensation in view of the fact that they were denied the property, we do not intend to award some more compensation in view of the fact that the complainants did not file any cross-appeal. Since interest @ 18% p.a. is awarded we feel that it would adequately compensate whatever the loss that was caused to the complainants. Therefore calculation of interest up to 19.3.2009 at 18% p.a., has to be confirmed besides subsequent interest also.
18) In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the alternative relief that was granted by the Dist. Forum . The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 3,55,485.04 calculated as on 19.3.2009 together with interest @ 18% p.a., on principal amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- from 19.3.2009 till the date of realization together with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/- in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) PRESIDENT
2) LADY MEMBER
3) MALE MEMBER
Dt. 08. 04. 2009.
