SETHUMADHAVI NUKALA Vs. NARNE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint is filed u/s 17(a)(1) of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the Narne Estates Private Limited, Secunderabad to register the plot No.169 in Central Park-II Layout situated in Sy.No.218/4, 218/5 of Kondapur Vilalge, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District in favour of the complainant and Rs. 3 lakhs towards compensation and costs.

(2.) The averments of the complaint are that the complainants friends son Mr.Johann Christopher purchased a plot No.169 admeasuring 235 sq.yards at Central Park-II layout at Kondapur village, Serilingampalli Mandal R.R.Dist. After some time as the said Johann Christopher was not interested he requested the opposite party by letter dated 12.4.2006 to transfer the plot in the name of the complainant and the same was accepted by the opposite party by its letter dated 3.7.1996. The total cost of the plot was Rs. 1,17,500/- including development charges. Thereafter the complainant paid Rs. 22,500/- on 3.5.1996 and also cleared all the dues. The opposite party issued a statement of account and according which the total cost of the plot was Rs. 1,17,500/- and the balance due was Rs. 77,500/- and also stated that the registration charges will be intimated when the registration is due. Thereafter the complainant paid Rs. 6,000/- towards installments due w.e.f. February 1996 to April 1996. By June 1999 the complainant paid the entire sale consideration of the plot. Immediately the complainant requested the opposite party to register the plot in her name but the opposite party failed to do so. While so the complainant left to USA in the year 2003. On 6.11.2006 the cousin of the complainant staying in India received letter from the opposite party wherein the opposite party informed the complainant the allotment plot was cancelled for non-payment of dues as per the terms. It is also mentioned in the letter that the opposite party has issued notices to the complainant for clearance of dues but the so called notices mentioned in the letter were never received by the complainant. The complainant addressed letter dated 22.11.2006 to the opposite party informing them that she would be returning to India and contact them in the first week of February 2007 and also that she has not encashed the cheque sent by them. Immediately on return to India, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party and requested for revoking the cancellation of the plot but the opposite party informed the complainant that there are some additional development charges and other charges for registration of the plot due. The complainant also consented for payment of all those chares that are payable by her legally. However, the opposite party vide its letter dated 20.9.2007 informed the complainant that the cancellation of plot cannot be revoked and requested the complainant to return the cheque for revalidation. The opposite party sent another cheque for Rs. 1,17,875/- along with letter dated 27.10.2007 requested to return the old cheque. Again the complainant addressed letters dated 10.12.2007 and 10.1.2008 requesting the opposite party to revoke the cancellation as she had paid the entire cost of the plot. Even the opposite party has not received clearance and final layout from HUDA so far. The government market value of the land in Sy.NO.218/4 & 218/5 of Kondapur village where the Central Park-II is situated is Rs. 10,000/- per sq.yards and for 235 sq.yards the present market value of the plot No.169 is more than Rs. 25 lakhs hence the Commission has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

(3.) The opposite party resisted the claim. It was contended that the complainant is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer. The Civil Court only has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Initially one Mr.Johann Christopher joined as a member and was allotted with a membership No.30818 for purchase of plot no.169 admeasuring 235 sq.yards. Subsequently on his request the opposite party has transferred the plot allotment to the complainant vide letter dated 3.7.1996. The complainant is still due of Rs. 1,17,875/- as on 6.11.2006 as per the reminder letter of the opposite party. The cost of the total sale consideration includes the cost of the land, cost of development works and registration charges which are payable as per the terms and conditions agreed thereupon. The complainant in order to escape from the liability stated that she never signed on the terms and conditions of the membership. When once the allotment was transferred to the complainant from the original allottee, the terms and conditions of allotment are binding on the complainant. Since the complainant inspite of repeated reminders and requests was not able to pay the development charges as requested by the oppose party the opposite party could not register the plot in her name. Though the opposite party provided with ample opportunity and after waited for a reasonable time for payment of dues, the complainant failed to do so. Since the complainant committed default in payment of development charges upon causing notice dated 6.11.2006, the opposite party constrained to cancel the allotment. Hence, the question of revoking the cancellation of the plot does not arise. The complainant has received the amount towards full and final settlement. The cost of land at the time of allotment per acre is about Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs and present more than five crore. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.