RAJA RAJESWARI ESTATES Vs. NARARJUNAKONDA JYOTHI SREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the impugned orders dated 15.11.2016, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 218/2015, according to which, the order dated 08.04.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guntur, sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment for a period of six months for non-compliance of the order passed by the consumer fora, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that consumer complaints no. 48/2010 and 51/2010 were filed by the complainants/respondents Nagarjunkonda Sundarachary and Nagarjunakonda Jyothi Sree against the petitioner/developer Sri Raja Rajeswari Estates, represented by its Managing Director, S. Gurava Reddy, saying that the complainants joined as members in the project Subhodaya Nagar, Group- I on 14.05.2002 and booked two plots after making certain payments to the opposite party (OP). The complainants were allotted plots no. 365 and 368 in one case and plots no. 364, 366 and 367 in the other case of 200 sq. yards each. However, the opposite parties were not coming forward to register the plots and deliver vacant possession to the complainants, even after the receipt of the entire cost from them, which amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The consumer complaints were filed, seeking directions to the OPs to register the plots in the name of the complainants and to pay damages of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainants.

(3.) Both the complaints were dismissed by the District Forum, Guntur vide their separate orders passed on 23.03.2011. The OP contended before the District Forum that they could not execute the registered deeds in favour of the complainants, in view of the pendency of Civil Suits, OS No. 171/2005 and OS No. 383/2003 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The District Forum observed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The District Forum also observed that if the complainants wanted a regular sale deed in their favour, they were at liberty to obtained the sale deed by incurring registration expenses by serving a notice in writing in advance to the OP and thereafter, the OP shall execute a sale deed in favour of the complainants within 15 days of receipt of such notice. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, two separate appeals were filed before the State Commission by the complainants, challenging the said order as F.A. No. 692/2011 and F.A. No. 693/2011 and these were decided by the State Commission on 09.01.2013. The State Commission allowed the appeals and directed the OP to execute the registered sale deeds in respect of the plots in question and also to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation in each case. The complainants were directed to bear the required registration expenses. The State Commission observed that there was no injunction order for the OPs to alienate the plots in question. Being aggrieved against the orders of the State Commission, the OP challenged the same before this Commission by way of the revision petitions, which were dismissed on the ground that these were barred by limitation.