M. NAGOOR RAO Vs. MARUTI PARASHURAM PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these Revision Petitions filed under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by M. Nagoor Rao, Proprietor of Sri Sravani Engineering Industries, is to the Orders dtd. 21/2/2017, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal Nos. 1042, 1043 and 1044 of 2013. By the Impugned Orders, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner, by affirming the view taken by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Medak (for short "the District Forum") vide Order dtd. 17/9/2013 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of 2012.

(2.) Since the question of law and facts involved in these Revision Petitions are similar except for minor variations in the Flat Numbers and their sale consideration, these Revision Petitions are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts as enumerated in CC No. 20 of 2012 filed before the District Forum, have been discussed at length herein.

(3.) Succinctly put, the facts giving rise to filing of the present Revision Petitions, as culled out from the CC No. 20 / 2012, are that Maruti Parashuram Patil (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) entered into an Agreement on 30/7/2008 registered as document No.11074/2008 with M. Nagoor Rao (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite party No. 1 Builder) to purchase the Flat bearing No.207 admeasuring 1000 sft of built-up area over plot Nos.86 to 90 in Sy.Nos.802, 806 and 807 admeasuring undivided share of land 25 sq.yards, situated at Sri Sai Sravani Nilayam, Beeramguda, hamlet of Ameenpur village, Patancheru mandal for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000.00 apart from car parking charges of Rs.85,000.00; Rs.25,000.00 towards installation of transformer; Rs.10,000.00 towards manjeera water supply and Rs.30,000.00 towards lift. The Complainant paid earnest money of Rs.2,55,000.00. The Opposite Party No.1 Builder assured to get the loan sanctioned from State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as OP No.2) and accordingly executed sale deed on the same day registered as document No.11075/2008 mentioning the delivery of flat though the same is actually not delivered till date. It was further averred that when the OP No.2 Bank started deducting the loan instalments from the salary account of the Complainant, on verification, it came to light that the OP No.2 had sanctioned the loan of Rs.13,00,000.00 of which it paid Rs.5,00,000.00 on 30/7/2008 and Rs.7,00,000.00 on 4/8/2008 and Rs.1,00,000.00 on 20/10/2008 without knowledge and consent of the Complainant, in collusion with Opposite Party/Petitioner Builder. As per the Agreement, the Opposite Party/Petitioner Builder promised to handover the Flat within 24 months but failed to comply with. No amenities, as agreed, were provided. On measurement, the built-up area is found to be short to that of agreed one.