Case nº Revision Petition No. 2591 Of 2010, (Against the Order dated 27/01/2010 in Appeal No. 1383/2007 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, July 27, 2016 (case 1. B.V.V. Ramesh Kumar and Anr. 2. Eswara Australia Manziam Consultants And Developers Vs M. Lakshmana Rao)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mrs B Sunita Rao, Advocate with Mr Anurag, Advocate and For Respondents: In Person |
| President | Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member and Mr. Anup K Thakur, Member |
| Resolution Date | July 27, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Rekha Gupta, J.
-
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.01.2010 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (''the State Commission'') in Appeal no. 1383 of 2007.
-
The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the petitioner induced the respondent to join in a scheme for purchase of 200 sq yards of site in which 40 manziam plants would be planted and developed as trees in six years. The respondent being attracted by the scheme entered into an agreement with the petitioners on 02.11.2000 and as per the agreement the respondent agreed to purchase plot no. 44 with manziam trees. At the time of transaction, the respondent paid an amount of Rs.5100/- towards first monthly instalment as an advance and the balance of consideration was to be paid within the stipulated time of 60 months. The petitioners agreed to develop 40 manziam plants in 200 sq yards of land undertaking to bear, labour, water, fertilizer expenses over a period of six years. The respondent purchased 200 sq yards of land from Bemasetty Suryakantham by a registered sale deed on 06.11.2000 by paying balance sale consideration to her.
-
The respondent further stated that even after six years as per the agreement there was no growth of manziam plants as promised by the petitioner. The petitioner did not take care of the development of the plants by rendering timely nourishment to the plants. Hence, the respondent got issued a legal notice dated 22.11.2006 to the petitioner and as there was no reply from them the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.
-
As the petitioners did not appear and contest the case, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vizianagaram (''the District Forum'') set them ex parte.
-
The District Forum dismissed the complaint vide their order dated 30.07.2007, which reads as under:
"Complainant purchased 200 sq yards of site for Rs.14,100/- as per sale deed dated 06.11.2000 from a third party. Complainant obtained agreement of sale dated 02.11.2000 from the opposite parties for the same property purchased under Ex A 7. In that sale agreement the complainant obtained a promise from the opposite parties to develop forty manziam trees in the land purchased by the complainant. There is no whisper of any consideration to the opposite parties for the service to be rendered by them. Complainant cannot enforce the agreement against the opposite parties because the service was devoid of consideration. Because the service was devoid of consideration, the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. We, therefore, hold that there is not deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, we answer the point accordingly.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-".
-
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while allowing the appeal observed as under:
"The respondent no. 2 is the managing partner of the respondent no. 1. The appellant purchased 200 sq yards of land on request of the respondents from its owner Smt Beemisetty Suryakantham through registered sale deed dated 06.11.2000. Prior to the execution of the sale deed, the appellant had entered...
To continue reading
Request your trial