C.C. No. 90 of 2013. Case: Pratapa Ram Kiran Vs Kotakki Lakshmi and Ors.. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberC.C. No. 90 of 2013
Party NamePratapa Ram Kiran Vs Kotakki Lakshmi and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: C. Sindhu Kumari, Advocate and For Respondents: T. Dharma Rao, Advocate
JudgesS. Bhujanga Rao and R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Members
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 17(a)(i), 28 A; Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14; Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 - Section 48
CitationII (2015) CPJ 108 (AP)
Judgement DateMarch 23, 2015
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

S. Bhujanga Rao, Member

  1. The complainant represented by his father and GPA holder, Mr. P.R.K. Prasad filed the complaint under Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties seeking directions as follows:

    (i) To deliver fully completed flat No. 2 in first floor of the complex constructed by them in the premises bearing Survey No. 38, Plot No. MIG 14 bearing door No. 4-43,17, situated in China Waltair, Visakhapatnam.

    (ii) To pay a total sum of Rs. 10,50,000 towards damages.

    (iii) To pay Rs. 50,000 towards costs.

    The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:

    The complainant submits that the opposite party No. 1 was the original owner of house bearing No. 4-43-17, Assessment No. 33983 of 624 sq. yds. (MIG Plot No. 14) in China Waltair of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and that she entered into a Development Agreement dated 18.1.2009 with opposite parties 2 and 3 herein i.e. M/s. Raghavendra Constructions. As per the Development Agreement, the opposite parties have undertaken construction of multiple flats. The complainant submitted that by sale deed dated 31.1.2009, opposite party No. 1 represented by opposite party No. 2 as GPA holder sold flat No. 2 in first floor with a plinth area of 975 sq. ft. with car parking in cellar along with an extent of 25 sq. yds. of undivided share of land in the said flats for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,75,000. Opposite party No. 1 executed a letter dated 20.1.2011 in favour of the complainant stating that the unfinished flat No. 2 was sold to the complainant under sale deed No. 255/2009 and construction agreement dated 31.1.2009 and was delivered on 20.1.2011.

  2. The complainant submitted that though opposite parties have issued the said letter, they have neither completed the construction of the said flat nor delivered the flat to the complainant though they have received the entire sale consideration. The complainant made several requests and demands to opposite parties to complete the flat and handover possession but opposite parties 1 to 3 put opposite party No. 4 in possession of the said unfinished flat which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant got issued a registered notice dated 8.11.2012 to the opposite parties for which there was no reply. Hence the complaint.

  3. The opposite party No. 1 filed written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and submitted that she was the owner of the house bearing No. 4-43-17, Assessment No. 33983 of 624 sq. yds. (MIG Plot No. 14) in China Waltair of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and gave General Power of Attorney for 312 sq. yds. vide Doc. No. 2809/2007 dated 26.6.2007 to opposite parties 2 and 3 and subsequently entered into a Development agreement on 20.8.2007 according to which, the flat of the complainant fell to the share of opposite parties 2 and 3. Opposite party No. 1 contended that she is no way related for the alleged transaction between the complainant and opposite parties 2 and 3 as she has not received any sale consideration or gave any undertaking to the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 submitted that she too repeatedly requested opposite parties 2 and 3 to complete the entire portion including common works of the apartment and that she came to know that opposite parties 2 and 3 have registered some flats of their share to multiple buyers and therefore she filed a suit for specific performance of agreement and also an Ad-interim Injunction restraining opposite parties from inducting other dependents into her suit schedule property before the IV Addl. District Judge in O.S. No. 263/2010 and the Court gave status quo against all the dependants including the complainant and 4th opposite party.

  4. Opposite party No. 1 further submitted that opposite parties 2 and 3 have handed over the said flat No. 2 in first floor to the complainant dated 20.1.2011 and the complainant was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said flat and subsequently on 6.1.2012, the complainant gave a registered...

To continue reading

Request your trial