A former non-resident Indian (NRI) living in Hyderabad, who had paid developers to buy and develop a land parcel in Karnataka, received relief from the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (TSCDRC). The commission directed the developers to refund ₹37.70 lakh and pay a compensation of ₹1 lakh.
The TSCDRC, with in-charge president Meena Ramanathan and member-judicial K. Ranga Rao, was dealing with a complaint filed by Marneedi Sreenivasa Rao. The opposite parties (OP) were Saripalli Vivekananda Kumar Raju, Dasari Sreenadha Rao, VEGE Realtors & Building, S. Sudhakar Reddy and Y. Raghava Rao.
The complainant said he entered into an agreement with the OP to buy and develop a 10-gunta land parcel in Shettarahalli, Karnataka. He later bought another acre from the same survey number and made a payment. He said the developers told him the land would be developed quickly, but they did not do so. He then sent the developers a legal notice, but they did not respond.
For their part, the OP denied all allegations and maintained that the consumer complaint was barred by time limitation and that it was a commercial transaction and TSCDRC had no jurisdiction.
The OP stated that the complainant had not handed over the land parcel. Therefore, development, which included laying of BT roads, could not be done. Further, the land parcel was under litigation with the Karnataka government, a fact which the complainant was aware of, they added.
The OP contended that certain refunds were made and produced receipts to this effect. However, the complainant contended that the signatures on these documents were not his. Interlocutory applications, one filed by the OP seeking the dismissal of the case, and another by the complainant to obtain the opinion of forensic experts about the authenticity of signatures, claimed by the OP as his, were filed. Though the former was dismissed, the later was allowed.
The signatures were then sent to the Central Forensic Laboratory and the TSCDRC found them to be forged. They also noted that the OP’s counsel neither challenged the forensic report nor did they choose to cross-examine the official.
Citing a clutch of cases, the TSCDRC ruled that the complainant was not barred by limitation, not commercial activity, and that it had the jurisdiction to deal with the case. Apart from ordering the refund at an interest rate of 12% per annum, and ordering compensation, the TSCDRC directed the OP to pay costs of ₹ 50,000 as well.
COMMents
SHARE