Full Judgment
Oral Order: (Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member)
1. The complainant has filed appeal challenging the order of the District Forum whereby his complaint was dismissed on the premise that the appellant was not allotted plot number and the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation.
2. The appellant got enrolled as a member in the venture âSri Shirdi Sai Estatesâ in the year,1995, floated by the respondents. The respondents allotted membership nos. 1591 and 1592 in favour of the appellant. The scheme was commenced on 17.02.1995 and its duration is for a period of 60 months. The appellant paid all the installments amounting to `42,000/- and the respondents acknowledging receipt of the amount, issued receipt in favour of the appellant.
3. The respondents allotted plot number 36 admeasuring 5.5 cents in the venture in favour of the appellant. The appellant has got issued notice dated 14.09.2009 calling upon the respondents to execute sale deed or in the alternative to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakh towards the present market value of the plot.
4. The first respondent against whom the complaint originally filed , contended by filing written version that its partners had executed sale deeds in favour of the members who paid the entire sale consideration and who approached it requesting for execution of the sale deed. The respondents no.2 to 7 are impleaded during pendency of the appeal. The contention of the respondents is that the appellant though paid the entire sale consideration of the plot, has not turned up with a request for execution of the sale deed. It is contended that the complaint is filed 10 years after commencement of the scheme. It I is submitted that without prejudice to their contentions and rights, the respondents would submit that there are no plot available for sale now and the appellant is entitled to the amount paid by him.
5. The appellant in support of his claim, filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A3. On behalf of the respondents, the respondent no.3 filed his affidavit and the documents, ExB1 to B4.
6. The complainant has filed appeal contending that the District Forum has failed to consider the documents in correct perspective before coming to conclusion that no plot was allotted in favour of the appellant and that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation.
7. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from mis-appreciation of facts or law?
8. The respondents have not disputed the allotment of membership numbers 1591 and 1592 in favour of the appellant in the venture âSri Shirdi Sai Estateâ floated by them and it is not in dispute that the respondents had allotted plot number 36 on receipt of the payment of the amount of `42,000/- from the appellant. The appellant would contend that the respondents had not executed sale deed in spite of his making payment of total sale consideration of the plot and he requested them to execute the sale deed as also he got issued notice through his advocate calling upon them to execute the sale deed in respect of the allotted plot.
9. The respondents would submit that they had executed sale deeds in favour of the members who paid the sale consideration and approached them after the expiry of the scheme period. They have contended that though the appellant had paid the entire sale consideration of the plot, he failed to make request for execution of the sale deed.
10. Thus, the admitted position is that the respondents had received the entire sale consideration and they allotted plot number 36 in favour of the appellant and that the plot number 36 allotted in favour of the appellant is no longer available for sale as it was allotted and sold in favour of third party. ExA2 bears the endorsement that plot number 36 was allotted in favour of the appellant. It is informed to the allottees that they had to come to the office of the first respondent-firm to get the plot registered in their favour and they were informed that they had to bear the registration charges. ExA2 does not bear any date. The respondents relied upon ExB2 to B4 which are the sale deeds executed by them in favour of the members of the scheme.
11. The appellant got issued notice dated 14.09.2009 that he requested the respondent no.1 and 2 to execute sale deed in respect of the plot number 36 in his favor and they postponed to do the same. The notice does not show as to when the appellant approached the respondents with a request to register the sale deed and at the same time it cannot be lost sight that the respondents no.1 and 2 had while disputing the allotment letter expressed their readiness to refund the amount paid by the appellant.
12. A perusal of the documents placed on record would show that the appellant had not approached the respondents at the time the other members of the scheme went ahead with execution of the sale deed in their favour in respect of the respective plots allotted in their favour. The respondents on one hand disputed issuance of the allotment letter and on the other hand they have contended that they had issued letters to the members requesting to consult them to come to them for the purpose of registration of the plots. The mutual inconsistent pleas combined with their inability to establish as to why they did not cancel the allotment in favour of the appellant before registering it in favour of the other member of the scheme would save the complaint from being time barred.
13. The appellant has been negligent and he is not vigilant at any time since the time he made payment of the installments. He has not approached the respondents after the scheme was closed or at the time the other members of the scheme approached them for registration of the plots allotted to them. The respondents cannot be expected to wait for infinite time for the appellant to turn up for registration of the plot in his favour and owing to the indolence of the appellant, the respondents had registered the plot in faovur of another member of the scheme. As such the appellant is entitled to the amount of `42,000/- with interest @9% from the date of filing of the complaint.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and consequently, the complaint is allowed directing the respondents to pay an amount of `42,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment and a sum of `3,000/- towards costs. Time for compliance four weeks.