COMPLAINT FILED: 31.07.2008<br /> <br /> 30th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT Nos. 1699 & 1700/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1699/2008<br /> COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1700/2008<br /> COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. Surekha Shand,<br /> W/o. Sri. Sanjay Shand,<br /> Aged about 32 years,<br /> Residing at No. 50, 7th Cross,<br /> Wilson Garden, <br /> Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. Jyothi Shand,<br /> W/o. Sri. Ajay Shand,<br /> Aged about 32 years,<br /> Residing at No. 50, 7th Cross,<br /> Wilson Garden, <br /> Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> <br /> Advocate (Paras Jain)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. Jai Tulsi Developers,<br /> A registered partnership firm,<br /> Having it’s office at<br /> # 12, K.H. Road,<br /> Sree Tulsi Chambers,<br /> Shanthinagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> Rep. by it’s Partners.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> These are the two complaints filed by the respective complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) seeking direction to OP to complete the entire building “Sree Tulsi Chambers” and pay a compensation and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 2. As the opposite parties in both the complaints are common, the question involved and relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning in the interest of justice both these complaints stand disposed of by this common order. <br /> <br /> 3. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under:<br /> In complaint No. 1699/08 complainant purchased a unit bearing No. 308 in the 3rd floor from OP under the sale deed dated 23.06.2004 and in complaint No. 1700/08 complainant purchased unit No. 205 in second floor from the OP under sale deed dated 23.06.2004. The grievance of the complainants is that, at the time of purchase of the said property there was no electricity supply, no lift, sanitation was not provided. OP promised to attend to the said defects within few months, but failed to do so evenafter the lapse of more than 3 years or so. The whole building is looking like a ghost building, there is no cleanness, white wash, paint, etc. Due to the shabby look of the building these complainants are unable to get tenants to their satisfaction so as to let it out. The repeated requests and demands made by each one of these complainants to complete the construction of the said building in all respect and provide all the basic necessities like electricity supply, water supply, sanitation, lift, went in futile. Thus complainants felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of theirs, they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 4. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were issued to the OP. Though the OP was duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the each one of these complainants filed their respective affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 6. On the perusal of the complaint and other relevant records it is seen that for the same relief each one of these complainants namely complainant in complaint No. 1699/08 had filed an earlier complaint before this Forum bearing Complaint No. 288/08 and complainant in complaint No. 1700/08 filed a complaint No.287/08. In these complaints also OP is one and the same, relief claimed is one and the same and OP remained ex-parte in the above said two complaints also. Then this Forum on the perusal of the pleadings, documents and the evidence lead by the complainants pleased to allow the said complaints vide order dated 28.03.2008. When we go through the office records it appears the said order has reached the finality. <br /> <br /> 7. In the said order it was specifically directed to the OP to complete the entire building “Sree Tulsi Chambers” as per the approved sanction plan and provide basic necessities like water supply, sanitary, electricity and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to each one of these complainants along with a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. It is further directed to comply the said order within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. It appears OP failed to comply the said orders and omit to comply the said order well within a reasonable time.<br /> <br /> 8. On the perusal of the present complaints the Advocate on record of previous complaints is also the Advocate in these complaints. The present complaints are nothing but the printouts of the earlier complaints, which is regrettable. When the order passed by this Forum dated 28.03.2008 has reached the finality, if there is a disobedience of the said order, complainants would have taken recourse to law in initiating the execution proceedings as contemplated under sec-25 or 27 of the C.P. Act. There was no need to file the present complaints and again seek the same relief. There appears to be abuse of process, it is unfortunate. Why complainants have not taken steps to execute the said order is not known. So there is a carelessness and negligence on the part of the complainants themselves in not taking proper steps for implementation of the order and reaping the fruits of the decree, which they obtained in their favour. <br /> <br /> 9. Hence for these reasons merely because OP remained ex-parte in these complaints that itself does not mean that we should reconsider the relief claimed in these complaints again. In view of the observation made in the body of the order, if the complainants are so advised they can file an Execution Petition to redress their grievance. These complaints appears to be devoid of merits. Hence complainants does not deserves the relief as claimed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint Nos. 1699/08 and 1700/08 are dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> The original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.1699/2008 and a copy of it shall be placed in complaint No.1700/2008.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />