PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer dispute is as under –
That the Opposite Party M/s. J.K. Construction Co. is a proprietary concern of Mr. J.K. Mehra and it is engaged in business of construction. It is submitted that the Complainant had entered into two agreements dtd.16/04/94 and 12/12/94 with the Opposite Party for purchase of flats bearing no.8 & 10 on the 4th & 5th floor respectively in Opposite Party’s building known as “Diamond Court” located at Plot No.90, Shere Punjab Colony, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 93. The Complainant had also entered into two agreements dtd.16/04/94 for purchase of two stilt parking space no.4 & 6 respectively with Opposite Party in aforesaid building “Diamond Court. The Complainant purchase aforesaid two flats and two stilt parking spaces from the Opposite Party in the year 1994 for total consideration of Rs.14,80,000/- as per terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The Complainant has produced copies of registered agreement alongwith complaint at Annexure ‘C-1’ to ‘C-4’ in respect of two flats and two stilt parking spaces.
2) It is averred in the complaint that Opposite Party handed over possession of two flats nos.7 & 9 to the Complainant vide letter dtd.12/12/94. Further, the Opposite Party handed over possession of stilt parking nos.8 & 5 by their letter dtd.15/12/94. The Complainant has produced copies of aforesaid possession letters alongwith complaint.
3) According to the Complainant, as per the terms and conditions of Agreement of Sale dtd.16/04/94, Clause No.8 contained a provision mentioning that the Complainant was required to pay Rs.900/- per flat as monthly maintenance charges of the said flat. Monthly maintenance charges were to be paid towards taxes, salary of the person appointed by the Builder/Opposite Party No.1, liftman, sweeper, insurance premium, etc. and other outgoings and expenses. The Complainant was ready and willing to pay monthly charges of Rs.900/- to the Opposite Parties regularly. The Opposite Party was required to pay taxes to BMC from the maintenance so collected. It is submitted that the Opposite Party on their own directed Complainant to pay the taxes directly to the BMC and this was confirmed at joint meeting held on 08/07/95 at the office of Opposite Party No.1. In the said meeting in presence of Estate Agent Nirmal Singhji, the Opposite Party agreed that monthly maintenance paid by the Complainant shall be reduced to Rs.700/- per month from 01/01/95 due to the fact that expenses regarding Municipal Taxes would be borne by the tenant directly. The Complainant has produced copy of Minutes dtd.08/07/95 singed by the Complainant and Opposite Party alongwith complaint at Annexure ‘C-7’.
4) It is submitted by the Complainant that he had paid an amount of Rs.3,158/- for tiling in the compound and granite at gate on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 which the Opposite Party No.1 have promised to pay back to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 agreed to adjust amount of Rs.3,518/- paid by the Complainant to one Mr. Shabbir Shafique Mohd. Qureshi on 06/06/1995 for the tiling in the compound & granite at gate on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.1 have promised to adjust this amount in the future maintenance of the Complainant which would be evident from the minutes dtd.08/07/95. The Complainant has produced copy of receipt dtd.06/06/95 received form Mr. Shabbir Shafique Mohd. Qureshi at annexure ‘C-8’.
5) It is submitted by the Complainant that by letter dtd.09/12/94 it was agreed that the Complainant would deposit Rs.25,000/- with Mr. Anuj Kumar Mehra (Opposite Party No.2) vide cheque dtd.29/04/94 drawn on Union Bank of India which was refundable within 6 months from the said dates or as soon as occupation certificate was received whichever was earlier. It is alleged that inspite of repeated demands to the Opposite Party the Complainant has not received the said amount.
6) It is submitted by the Complainant that at the time of handing over possession of the stilt parking spaces, Opposite Party No.1 promised the Complainant to make enclosed garages on the same within 6 months i.e. on or before 30/06/95. However, inspite of repeated demands made by the Complainant the Opposite Parties have failed and neglected to make enclosed garages for the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant was forced to spend Rs.83,595/- towards the construction of these garages on the open stilt parking spaces on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has produced receipt of Rs.25,000/- and Bank Certificate purporting the cheque encashed by Anuj Kumar Mehra.
7) It is the case of the Complainant that by letter dtd.10/01/96 payment of monthly outgoings from 01/01/95 to 31/03/96 was paid @ Rs.700 p.m. to the Opposite Party No.1. In the letter dtd.10/01/1996, it is stated that it was full and final settlement of the outgoings towards Opposite Party No.1. It is alleged that Opposite Party No.1 did not object on receiving the above payment but continue to send bills @ Rs.900/- p.m. which was contrary to what was agreed in the meeting dtd.08/07/95. The Complainant has produced copies of letters dtd.10/01/96 & 16/04/96 written to Opposite Party No.1.
8) It is alleged by the Complainant that at the time of constructing the said garages it was found that the area allotted by the Opposite Party No.1 in the stilt parking space area is about 40 sq.ft. less than what should have been allotted by the Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant as per the terms of agreement. Opposite Party has unilaterally allotted a reduced area of 40 ft. for which the Complainant had paid consideration. Opposite Party has allotted 40 sq.ft. less area and thereby Complainant had suffered a monetary loss of about Rs.4,600/-. It is further alleged that Opposite Parties have used 40 sq.ft. area towards construction of illegal bathroom and toilets and thereby cutting out access available to the Complainant for the use of garage. Aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties amounts to unfair trade practice.
9) It is submitted by the Complainant that he was required to give access to one stilt parking space which was allotted by the Opposite Parties to another, for which he was required to bear 50% cost of construction i.e. Rs.7,500/- on 01/01/95 which was the responsibility of the Opposite Parties. Further it is submitted that in the month of January, 95 the Complainant was required to pay Rs.6,231/- towards electricity bills, as Opposite Parties were unable to pay the said bill. The Complainant has produced copy of bill dtd.24/01/95 at annexure ‘C-14’.
10) It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties have been collecting the proportionate share of taxes in the maintenance bills since handing over possession of the said flat to the Complainant. Inspite of having collected proportionate shares of taxes till date Opposite Party have not paid BMC taxes in respect of Complainant’s flat. Therefore, the Complainant was required to pay Rs.1,63,032/- as a BMC Taxes. The Complainant has produced various receipts certifying the payment made by the Complainant to BMC at annexure ‘C-15’.
11) It is submitted that Complainant was shocked to receive a letter from Opposite Party No.1 dtd.04/11/2000 asking the Complainant to pay arrears of monthly maintenance @ Rs.900/- p.m. Complainant by his letter dtd.13/11/2000 categorically denied his liability to pay the said amount. As per the Minutes of Meeting dtd.08/07/95 the Complainant has regularly paid maintenance amount. The Opposite Party No.1 had sent advocate’s notices dtd.20/11/2000 to the Complainant. Complainant had sent reply to the said notice. It is submitted that by letter dtd.24/01/2001 Opposite Party No.1 has illegally threatened the Complainant of terminating Agreement of Sale by misconstruing clause 37 of the said agreement. The Opposite Parties are not interesting in refunding any amounts spend by the Complainant on behalf of the Opposite Party therefore, the Complainant had filed this complaint.
12) The Complainant has requested to declare that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service and of unfair trade practice. The Complainant has requested to direct Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant Rs.1,63,032/- paid by the Complainant to the BMC alongwith 18% interest. Further he has claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/- from Opposite Party No.2 of refundable deposit alongwith 18% interest. The Complainant has requested to direct Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.83,595/- spend by the Complainant for construction of garages on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has claimed Rs.4,500/- being monetary consideration for allotment of reduced 40 sq. ft. area and further requested to direct Opposite Party No.1 to provide access to the Complainant for utilizing parking space in terms of agreements. The Complainant has claimed Rs.7,500/- incurred by him for removal of access to one stilt parking, Rs.6,231/- paid by him towards electricity charges for the lift and Rs.3,518/- incurred by him for tiling compound and granite gate on behalf of Opposite Parties alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. The Complainant has claimed Rs.50.000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards legal charges.
13) The Opposite Party has filed written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending interalia that complaint is misconceived, bad in law and time barred and therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is alleged that there is no cause of action to the complaint and the allegations made in the complaint are totally false and therefore, Complainant is not entitled for any compensation or any other reliefs.
14) The Opposite Party has denied averments made in the complaint submitting that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has admitted contents of complaint para no.3A, B & C. Accordingly to the Opposite Party, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Sale which was agreed between the parties that the Complainant was required to pay Rs.900/- per flat as monthly maintenance charges. The Complainant paid maintenance charges at aforesaid rate only for some period and thereafter committed default in making payment. As regards BMC Taxes, it is submitted by the Opposite Party paid taxes prior to the handing over possession of the Flats to Purchaser/ Complainant. After receipt of possession of the flats the Complainant/Purchaser is under obligation to pay BMC Taxes.
15) The Opposite Party has denied allegations that meeting was held on 08/07/95. It is submitted that Opposite Party did not attend so called meeting. The Opposite Party never agreed to accept Rs.700/- instated of Rs.900/- per flat towards maintenance charges. The Opposite Party has denied signature in the minutes of the meeting allegedly held on 08/07/95. The Opposite Party has further submitted that they have not agreed for any payment for tiling hence, allegations made by the Complainant are false and baseless. With reference to para No.3-F, it is submitted by the Opposite Party that Opposite Party No.2 – Mr. Anuj Kumar received Rs.25,000/- on behalf of builder for the permission to the Complainant for : i) to demolish a portion of already constructed RCC slab in between 4th & 5th floor flats for the provision of stair case required for duplex type arrangement, ii) to demolish partition walls in between two kitchens, iii) to demolish partition walls of two bed rooms adjoining the hall rooms and iv) for some other additions & alterations in the flats purchased by the Complainant as per his desire. All the aforesaid permissions were given by the builder at the risk of stability of RCC structure of the building. The Opposite Party has specifically denied that at the time of handing over the possession of the stilt parking spaces they had promised to make enclosed garages. It is submitted that there was no question to construct enclosed garages.
16) It is submitted by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant himself accepted and admitted the liability to pay municipal taxes and electricity bills. The Opposite Party has demanded Rs.78,727/- as amount of arrears of short payment including interest for the period up to 31/12/2000 from the Complainant. The Opposite Party has denied allegations that 40 sq. ft. less space was handed over to the Complainant in one of the stilt parking space. According to the Opposite Party, as requested by the Complainant the Opposite Party constructed toilet with washing place for the use of Complainant and other members servants and drivers. The aforesaid construction of toilet and washing place is not a illegal construction. The Opposite Party was constrained to issue legal notice to the Complainant for recovery of legal arrears towards maintenance and other charges as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. It is submitted that Complainant is not entitled for any refund of any amount. There is no cause of action to the complaint and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
17) After considering evidence adduced by both the parties this Forum vide order dtd.22/07/03 has dismissed the complaint with no order as to cost, observing that “the dispute between the parties is a civil nature and this Forum is not competent to decide the same. Opposite Party have urged that the complaint is time barred, but we find no substance in it, because allegations of deficiency in service and other disputes are continuous one.”
18) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of this Forum the Complainant had preferred an Appeal No.1291 and 1292 of 2003 before the Hon’ble State Commission and by order dtd.17/12/03 the Hon’ble State Commission has allowed the appeals by passing order as follows –
“O R D E R
1. Appeals are allowed and their respective impugned orders dated 22nd July, 2003 are set aside.
2. Matters are remitted to the South Mumbai District Forum for consideration afresh on merits except point of
Limitation in accordance with the provisions of the Law and the Rules and on giving proper opportunities to the
parties thereunder.
3.Appellants’ Advocate shall furnish copy of the order herein to the South Mumbai District Forum immediately.
4.By consent the date of appearance before the South Mumbai District Forum by parties is fixed on 7th January,
2004 on which date the parties shall ensure then appearances before the District Forum without fail and seek the
direction with regard to the fixation of date of hearing.
5.It is made clear and distinctly understood to the parties that no further notices for appearance will be required
to be issued by the District Forum to the parties.
6.The District Forum shall proceed to dispose of the complaints totally uninfluenced by its earlier findings or any
observations of ours in the judgement herein concerning the merits of the matters treating the same as our prima
-facie views and observations thereof.
7.District Forum to ensure expeditious disposal of the matters after remand.
8.As far as these appeals are concerned, no order as to costs.
9.office shall furnish copies of the order to the parties.”
19) After remind Opposite Party No.1 produced document dtd.20/09/06 is in the form of letter signed by the flat owners including present Complainant and it is addressed to Mr. J.K. Mehra. The letter is signed by the present Complainant alongwith other flat owners. Relevant portion of the letter is as under -
“Dear Sir,
As desired by you, we jointly state that:
1. There are no amounts due to be received by any one of us from the builders, etc.
The Complainant has filed reply to the Opposite Party’s application dtd.05/08/2011 for production of documents dtd.20/09/06 submitting that application made by the Opposite Parties is irrelevant and mischievous and it is made with intention to cause delay in hearing of the matter. The Complainant had denied letter dtd.20/09/06 submitting that letter has no relevance to the present dispute. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties are trying to divert attention of the Hon’ble Forum. It is alleged that Opposite Party No.1 obtained aforesaid letter from the flat owners submitting that it was requirement for formation of the society. The letter issued on 20/09/06 was for the purpose of getting the society registered.
20) The Complainant has filed written argument. The Opposite Parties have also filed written argument. We heard oral submissions of Ld.Advocate Mr. Wavikar for the Complainant and Opposite Party – J.K. Mehra. Mr. J.K. Mehra has submitted that his written argument may also be treated as his oral argument.
21) Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties ?
Findings : No
Point No.2 : Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs from Opposite Parties as prayed for ?
Findings : No
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- Following facts are undisputed facts that Opposite Party No.1 Mr. J.K. Mehra is the Proprietor of M/s. J.K. Construction Co. Opposite Party No.2 is son of Mr. J.K. Mehra. M/s. J.K. Construction Co. is engaged in the business of construction of buildings. The Complainant had entered into two Registered Agreement dtd.16/04/94 & 12/12/94 with the Opposite Parties for purchase of two flats bearing No.8 & 10 on the 4th & 5th floor of a building known as “Diamond Court”, located at Plot No.90, Shere Punjab Colony, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 93. The Complainant has also purchased two stilt parking spaces bearing No.4 & 6 from the Opposite Party. The Complainant had purchased two flats and two stilt parking spaces for total consideration of Rs.14,80,000/- from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties have handed over possession of Flat No.8 & 10 to the Complainant by their letter dtd.12/12/94. Opposite Parties also delivered possession of two stilt parking spaces to the Complainant by their letter dtd.15/12/94. Alongwith complaint the Complainant had produced copies of purchase of flat and copies of agreement of purchase of stilt car parking and copies of letters of delivery of possession of flats and stilt car park.
It is alleged by the Complainant in the Agreement of Sale dtd.11/11/93 and 04/04/94 in Clause No.8 there is a provision regarding payment of monthly maintenance @ 900/- per flat towards taxes, salary of the person appointed by the Promoter, such as liftman, sweeper and other outgoing charges. The Complainant was ready and willing to pay monthly maintenance charges of Rs.900/- p.m. regularly. It is alleged that Opposite Party was required to pay taxes to BMC from the maintenance so collected. Therefore, Opposite Party on their own directed the Complainant to pay taxes directly to BMC and this was confirmed at joint meeting held on 08/06/95 at the office of Opposite Party. It is submitted on behalf of Complainant that after prolonged discussion Opposite Party agreed to reduce maintenance charges from Rs.900/- p.m. to Rs.700 p.m. from 01/01/95 and as the Municipal Taxes would be borne by the flat owners. The Complainant has produced copy of the so called minutes of meeting dtd.08/06/95 singed by the Complainant and Opposite Party at annexure ‘C-7’. The Opposite Party has denied the allegations made in the complaint and also denied so called signature appearing below the alleged minutes of meeting contending that no such meeting was held. Opposite Party has denied his so called signature. The Complainant has not produced original document. Xerox copy of the document produced on record appears to be doubtful and unsafe to rely.
The Complainant has prayed to direct Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs.1,63,032/-paid by the Complainant to the BMC alongwith 18% interest. The Opposite Party has denied the aforesaid claim of the Complainant. The Complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to support his claim that he paid an amount of Rs.1,63,032/- to the BMC towards taxes before receipt of possession of flats. The Complainant has produced copies of the payment of BMC Taxes from 24/08/95 onwards. Admittedly the Complainant received possession of flats in the year 1994. It was possible for the Complainant to produce BMC Tax receipt or any other documentary evidence to prove that he has paid BMC Taxes prior to receipt of possession of flats. There is no evidence to prove that the Complainant from the date of Agreement of Sale of flat till receipt of the actual possession paid any taxes to the BMC. As mentioned above, in the month of December, 1994, the Complainant received actual possession of his aforesaid two flats and two stilt car park from the Opposite Parties. Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has not point out any term or condition in the Agreement of Sale which makes the Builder/Promoter liable to pay BMC Taxes in respect of the flats and car park sold to the Purchaser even after handing over possession of the same to flat purchasers. Considering the evidence on record we do not find substance in the Complainant’s claim for Rs.1,63,032/- towards BMC Taxes against the Opposite Party.
It is the case of the Complainant that by letter dtd.09/12/94 it was agreed that the Complainant would deposit Rs.25,000/- with Mr. Anujkumar Mehra and accordingly the Complainant deposited said amount vide cheque dtd.29/04/94. It is say of the Complainant that aforesaid amount was refundable within 6 months from the date and as soon as aforesaid Occupation Certificate was received which ever was earlier. The Complainant has claimed recovery of Rs.3,158/- for tiling in compound and granite at the gate on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 contending that Opposite Party No.1 had promised to pay back to the Complainant aforesaid amount.
The Opposite Party has denied the Complainant’s claim for refund of amount. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that Opposite Party had authorized Complainant to do the work of tiling in the compound and granite at the gate on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. Further, the Complainant has claimed recovery of Rs.25,000/- from the Opposite Party contending that by letter dtd.09/12/94 it was agreed that Complainant would deposit Rs.25,000/- with Mr. Anujkumar Mehra by cheque dtd.29/04/94 and the aforesaid amount was refundable within 6 months from the date or as soon as occupation certificate was received which was earlier. Opposite Parties have raised contention that Opposite Party No.2 - Mr. Anujkumar Mehra had received Rs.25,000/- on behalf of builder for the permission of the Complainant for : i) to demolish a portion of already constructed RCC slab in between 4th & 5th floor flats for the provision of stair case required for duplex type arrangement, ii) to demolish partition walls in between two kitchens, iii) to demolish partition walls of two bed rooms adjoining the hall rooms and iv) for some other additions & alterations in the flats purchased by the Complainant as per his desire. However, as mentioned above it is contention of the Complainant that said amount was paid by the Complainant for aforesaid work and it was not refundable deposit. The Complainant has not disputed the allegations made in the written statement that said amount was received for permission to demolish of portion of already constructed RCC slab in between 4th & 5th floor flats for the provision of stair case required for duplex type arrangement, to demolish partition walls in between two kitchens, etc. There is no evidence to support the contention that amount of Rs.25,000/- was refundable deposit therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to refund aforesaid amount from the Opposite Party.
It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 at the time of handing over possession of the stilt parking spaces, promised to make enclosed garages for the Complainant. However, the Opposite Parties failed to make enclosed garages for the Complainant. Therefore, Complainant was forced to spend Rs.83,595/- towards construction of his garages as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant has not adduced any evidence to support the contention that Opposite Party No.1 had assured to make enclosed garages within 6 months from the date of handing over possession of the stilt parking spaces. Therefore, Complainant is not entitled to recover Rs.83,595/- as claimed from the Opposite Party.
It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 allotted stilt parking spaces to the Complainant but same area of the stilt parking spaces was not allotted as per terms agreed between the parties. It is alleged that Opposite Party has unilaterally reduced area of 40 sq. ft. and it has caused monitory loss of Rs.4,600/- to the Complainant. The Complainant claimed recovery of the said amount. According to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant had insisted additional facility of toilet with washing place. The said toilet with washing place is for the use of the Complainant & other proposed members servants and drivers. The construction was made as per the request of the Complainant and now the Complainant cannot claim that the said construction is illegal. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that the aforesaid additional facility was constructed on the stilt parking place and therefore, there is no truth in the allegations made by the Complainant that reduce area of 40 sq. ft. of parking space was given to the Complainant. The Complainant has admitted that construction of bathroom and toilet, however, the Complainant has not adduced any evidence to support to contention that construction of toilet and bathroom is illegal construction. For want of reliable evidence we do not find substance in the allegations made by the Complainant.
It is important to note that by order dtd.17/12/03, the Hon’ble State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside decision of this Forum and remanded the matter for fresh trial. Thereafter the Opposite Party alongwith application dtd.05/08/2011 has produced letter dtd.20/09/06 which is signed by Complainant and other flat owners in favour of Opposite Party. The Complainant has filed written say contending that Promoter Mr. J.K. Mehra obtained said in writing from the Complainant for the purpose of registration of society. The Complainant has not denied signature below the letter dtd.20/09/06. Letter is addressed to Mr. Mehra, Proprietor of M/s. J.K. Construction Co. in which the Complainant, other flat purchasers have clearly stated that –
“Dear Sir,
As desired by you, we jointly state that:
1. There are no amounts due to be received by any one of us from the builders.
2. Whatever amount was paid to the builders towards deposits, other charges etc. etc. at the time of Flat
purchase by each one of us stands adjusted and settled up to date.
3. We the flat owners have no complaint regarding construction, amenities provided in the building and any
other matter of whatsoever nature.
4. We all are fully satisfied and are happy that we purchased the flats in a building constructed by you.”
The aforesaid letter is given by the Complainant and other flat owners to the op No.1 on 20/09/06 i.e. during pendency of this proceeding in which the Complainant and other flat owners have clearly admitted that there are no amounts due to be received by any one of them from the builders. Further, they have clearly stated that they have no complaint regarding the construction amenities provided in the building and in any other matter of whatsoever nature. It is stated that flat purchasers are fully satisfied and are happy that they purchased the flats in a building construction by you. Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that the aforesaid letter was obtained by the Opposite Party by misleading Complainant and other flat purchasers by making false representation that such type of letter is required for registration of the society. It is not disclosed that when society was registered. In the aforesaid letter dtd.20/09/06, absolutely there is no mention of registration of cooperative society. It is well settled that admission of adversary is best evidence. The Complainant has failed to support its contention that aforesaid letter was obtained by Opposite Party by practicing fraud It was possible for the Complainant to file affidavit of other flat purchasers who have signed the said letter to support his contention. However, the Complainant has not filed affidavit of any other flat purchasers. It is clear from the contents of the letter dtd.20/09/06 that on that day the Opposite Party was not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant and the Complainant had no grievance on any kind against Opposite Party. Therefore, considering the evidence on record we hold that Complainant has failed to prove alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Therefore, we answer point no.2 in the negative.
Point No.2 : As discussed above the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed. Hence, we answer point no.2 in the negative.
For the reasons discussed, complaint is liable to be dismissed therefore, we pass following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.149/2001 is hereby dismissed.
ii.No order as to cost.
iii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
