ANURADHA PROPERTIES & TOWNSHIP PVT LTD AND ORS Vs. A P STATE BANKERS MUTUALLU AIDED CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD & 5 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 15.04.2014, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in appeal No. 468/2012, "Kuppa Radha Krishna & Ors. vs. A.P. State Bankers Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr." vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint No. 744/2011, dismissing the complaint, was set aside and both the OPs were directed jointly and severally to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants/respondents no. 2 to 6 filed the consumer complaint in question against the Opposite Parties (OPs), alleging that despite making payments for the purchase of plots, the OPs failed to provide them the property so booked, neither they refunded the amount deposited by them. The OP No. 1 is Andhra Pradesh State Bankers' Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., whereas the OP No. 2 is the present petitioner and builder, M/s. Anuradha Properties & Township Pvt. Ltd. The complainant alleged that they became members of the said Cooperative Housing Society and deposited various amounts with them for booking the plots in question. The said Society entered into a memorandum of understanding with the petitioner/OP-2 Builder, M/s. Anuradha Properties & Township Private Limited, and the money deposited by the complainants with the Society was passed on to the Builder. The grievance of the complainants is that the petitioner/OP No. 2 did not obtain necessary approvals from the concerned development authorities HUDA/HMDA etc. for the purpose of development and in fact, the original owners of the land were still growing crops on the same and were not allowing them to enter the said crop. The complainants requested the OP No. 2 to cancel the sale-deed in their favour and refund the money received by them. However, on the failure of the OP-2 to do the needful, they filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum. The District Forum, vide order dated 31.05.2012, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the cancellation of the sale-deed and re-conveying of the plot could not be directed by a consumer forum.

(3.) Being aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, the complainants approached the State Commission by way of appeal. Vide order dated 15.04.2014, the State Commission directed both the OPs jointly and severally to refund the amount alongwith interest @9% p.a. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the OP-1 Cooperative Housing Society preferred a revision petition before this Commission as Revision Petition No. 3189/2014. The petitioner, OP-2 was impleaded as respondent No. 1 in the said petition. This Revision Petition No. 3189/2014 was decided by this Commission by order dated 16.12.2014, as per which, the order passed by the State Commission was modified to say that since the OP-1 Society had transferred the amount received from the complainants to the present petitioner/OP-2 on their request, the complainants could claim the aforesaid amount from OP-2 only. The impugned order to the extent, it had directed the petitioner/OP-1 Society to refund the amount to the complainant, was set aside. The present revision petition has, however, been filed by the OP-2 petitioner independently of RP No. 3189/2014 on 12.10.2015, taking the plea that they had no knowledge of the proceedings before the State Commission. An application for condonation of delay of 432 days in filing the present revision petition has also been filed, saying that the petitioners did not receive the copy of the impugned order, stated to have been despatched on 06.05.2014. They came to know about the said order only by way of the execution proceedings in the case. There is no mention in the present revision petition about the earlier Revision Petition No. 3189/2014, which was decided on 16.12.2014.