Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

                    (3)     Anil Kumar Singh

                              Member

Date of Order : 28.09.2018

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to make payment of Rs. 16,55,878/- along with 18% interest.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay litigation cost.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that he has purchased flat no. 401 of Shivam Vihar – 1 apartment, Kanti factory road, Mahatama Gandhi Nagar – 26 from opposite party no. 1 after paying Rs. 5,15,000/- and came in possession in June 2003. The opposite party no. 1 and 2 had charged Rs. 15,000/- for electric connection and installation of generator set which was never provided by them and at last in 2005 the complainant himself took an electric connection in his flat and due to this conduct of the opposite parties, he and his family and to suffer much causing obstruction in the education of his children.

It is further case of the complainant that Rs. 16,000/- was realized by the opposite parties from the flat purchasers for installation of the lift which was never done and the flat owners including the complainant are forced to use the stair. The common place in the entire building was never given finished touch and sewerage of the apartment was not connected with the municipal sewerage line by opposite parties which was subsequently done by the society of the apartment in which the complainant had to share the expenses and due to non – co – operation of the opposite parties the sewerage connection certificate has not been issued by Patna Municipal Corporation. amounting of Rs. 30,000/- was realized by the opposite parties for parking space which was never marked and handed it to the complainant.

It has been also stated in Para – 5 of complaint petition which is as follows, “that the land owner, opposite party no. 10 and 11 had taken loan from Bank of India by mortgaging the land, on which the building/apartment stands. They entered into an agreement with the builder company for construction of multi storied building. The Bank of India moved Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna for realization of loan amount with interest. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna got public auction sale notice published in the newspaper dated 14.08.2006 for the sale of land including building. Subsequently the builder company also took loan on the said land for construction of apartment from Bihar State Housing Co – Operative Federation Ltd., Patna. The complainant has been given notice dated 21.11.2006 to pay an amount of Rs. 3,63,978/- (Rs. Three Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Eight only) from the Bihar State Housing Co – Operative Federation Ltd., Patna. The complainant had no knowledge about the aforesaid loans taken by either of the opposite parties nor was given knowledge about the aforesaid loan or ant loan.”

In Para- 6 of the complaint petition it has been further stated that after publication of the Public Auction Sale notice by the debt recovery tribunal, Patna the complainant learnt that he was defrauded by the land owners and the builders in collusion with each other and hence if the flat of the complainant is sold in realization of the loan amount of bank of india and housing federation the complainant would become homeless despite the fact that he will be under debt of LIC housing finance ltd. to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- + interest thereon which he has taken for purpose of flat in question.

The grievance of the complainant is that due to the conduct of the opposite parties he has to suffer economic loss to the tune of Rs. 16,55,878/- the breakup details of which have been mentioned in page – 6 of complaint petition.

On behalf of opposite party no. 5 and 6 an objection petition cum written statement has been filed stating therein that this case is not maintainable.

It has been stated that in 1999 Neera Sharma was informed by some person that she has been appointed as Director of the said Shivam Housing Pvt. Ltd. by some vested person of opposite party no. 1 but after getting the aforesaid knowledge she sent a letter to the Managing Director of M/s Shivam Housing Pvt. Ltd. on 30.11.1999 that as she was suffering from acute Diabetes and not in a position to handle the work of company and she tendered her resignation from the said company and the said letter was accepted by the company. The letter written by the Neera Sharma has been annexed as annexure – 1 and 2 of the written statement. She also wrote a letter to the registrar of the company requesting him to delete her name from directorship of the company on the ground that she never worked as director of the said company. She has denied all the allegation of the complainant in her written statement.

On behalf of opposite party no. 9 and 10 a show cause has been filed stating therein that they are husband and wife and owned a piece of land measuring about 5445 Sq. Ft. of the land bearing plot no. 433/4 under khata no. 98, holding no. 31/1-2, Circle no. 50 in village – Bahadurpur, P.S. Agamkuan, Patna for which they entered into an registered development agreement with opposite party no. 7 who are developers and builders for constructing a multi storied building on the terms and condition in corporate in the said agreement and as per agreement the opposite party no. 1 to 8 will pay the bank dues in lieu thereof they were to get 833 Sq. Ft. of the building area but the opposite party no. 1 to 8 has also violated the terms and condition of the agreement due to which opposite party no. 9 and 10 are defending them self in recovery case no. 168 of 2002 pending before debt recovery tribunal, Patna filed by bank of india.

It is also alleged that opposite party no. 1 to 8 fabricated false power of attorney by opposite party no. 9 in favour of them self by forced signature of opposite party no. 9 and 10 and obtained loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- from Bihar State Housing Co – operative Federation Ltd. for which a Criminal case no. 71 of 2004 was registered in Shashtri Nagar P.S. against opposite party no. 1 to 8 by chairman of the housing federation.

Opposite party no. 9 and 10 has also filed request case no. 36 of 2005 before High Court, Patna against opposite party no. 1 to 8 and Ex – Case no. 1 of 2007 has also filed by the opposite party no. 9 and 10 in Civil Court, Patna.

Complainant has also filed rejoinder making several allegation. It has been stated that opposite party no. 9 and 10 being Co – Sharer of the flat to the complainant and they are Consumer of opposite party no. 9 and 10 along with opposite party no. 1 to 8.

On behalf of complainant a rejoinder to the show cause of opposite party no. 5 and 6 has also been filed stating therein that allegation made by them are false and concocted.

It is also stated that annexure – 1 is back dated which is proved by annexure – 2.

On behalf of opposite party no. 9 and 10 as well as opposite party no. 5 and 6 written argument has also been filed and the complainant has also filed written argument all have been perused by us.

So far other opposite parties are concerned that they have not entered appearance in this case and as such the case was heard ex – parte against them.

From perusal of complaint petition, written statement, rejoinder as well as written argument, it is crystal clear that several disputed facts are involved in this case. Opposite party no. 5 and 6 have asserted that she has resigned from the directorship of the company and hence she is not aware of the facts stated by the complainant. The opposite party no. 9 and 10 have stated that the statement of opposite party no. 5 is not correct and resignation letter is back dated. It appears that land owners has filed a Criminal case against the builders and the Bank of India has filed a case for recovery of their amount, the details of which have been mentioned in forgoing paragraphs.

No purpose will be served in repeating the same fact again and again.

It is well settled law that the District Consumer Forum has no authority / jurisdiction to decide disputed fact.

For the reason stated above this complaint petition stands dismissed but without cost.

                                     Member (F)                   Member                            President