NCC URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs. RAVI KRISHNA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.08.2010 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short "the State Commission) in Complaint No. 53 of 2009, Ravi Krishna Prasad v. M/s. NCC Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Rep. by its authorised signatory by which, complaint was partly allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is a resident of USA executed GPA in favour of his father to enter into an agreement with the opposite party/petitioner a builder for purchase of a flat. Accordingly, his father paid Rs. 16,11,334/- on various dates viz., Rs. 4 lakhs on 24.5.2007, Rs. 2 lakhs on 5.6.2007, Rs. 9,97,340/- on 11.6.2007 and Rs. 13,994/- on 9.7.2007 to the opposite party. When he sought loan for payment of remaining balance of sale consideration the nationalised banks raised objection. He came to know that there was no proper permission. The Government had informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered status quo during the pendency of the dispute. The very entering into agreement for sale of the flat is contrary to the orders of the Supreme Court. The opposite party had suppressed the orders of Supreme Court besides various orders of injunctions issued by statutory authorities. The complaint was filed seeking refund of Rs. 16,11,334/- with interest @ 24% p.a., Rs. 5,00,000/- towards increase in dollar rate, Rs. 15 lakhs towards increased rate of apartment and costs.

(3.) The opposite party builder resisted the case by denying each and every allegation made by the complainant. It was further alleged that there was breach of agreement and complainant did not adhere to the payment schedule annexed to the agreement. As against the sale consideration of Rs.1,07,42,225/-, the complainant had paid Rs. 16,11,334/-. The complainant had verified the title and having satisfied entered into agreement of sale on 7.7.2007 for purchase of a flat for a consideration of Rs. 1,07,42,225/- as mentioned above. They have applied for regularisation of the title for the land situated at Sy.No. 46 part and Sy.No. 53 part including the extent of Ac. 9.24 gts. They purchased the property from the real owners under various deeds and they have acquired the property by virtue of permit No. 13092/BP/CDA/2006 Dated 15.5.2007 issued by Hyderabad Development Authority. It had started other preparatory works. Pursuant to the above approval HUDA had also issued permission to construct residential apartments. It had never promised to arrange for loan or financial assistance through financial institutions or banks. It had only promised to assist the complainant for processing the loan. The property was not under any litigation, this was alleged in order to evade the agreement of sale and to cover up his own breach. They were not a party to the proceedings. Substantial part of sale consideration was due. In order to evade payment the complainant was taking all these untenable pleas to get over payment of balance of sale consideration. It was ready to execute sale deed provided balance of sale consideration is paid. Since there are latches on the part of complainant and had violated the terms of the agreement, it was not liable to refund the said amount and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed OP to refund Rs.16,11,334/- with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 10,000/- against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.