Date of Filing:13.10.2009<br /> Date of Order: 10.05.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 10H DAY OF MAY 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2385 OF 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Arun Kumar Sivam,<br /> S/o S.Samba Sivam,<br /> R/at L-316, Ittina Soupernika,<br /> Sarjapura Road, <br /> Bangalore-34. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s. Ittina Properties Pvt., Ltd.,<br /> Registered Office: 1054, 7th Main,<br /> III- Block, Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore-34. Opposite Parties<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The Complainant has prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to allot covered car parking lot or refund an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. The complainant has submitted that the opposite party has executed sale deed on 3-8-2007 in respect of flat transferring the property along with covered car parking area. At the time of execution of sale deed opposite party informed that car parking area would be allotted after identifying the same. In spite of repeated requests opposite party kept promising that the car parking would be provided but did not do so. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to allot covered car parking area or refund an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- the amount paid for the same. <br /> 2. The opposite party has filed defense version stating that, the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint does not come under the definition of the consumer. The Complaint himself has admitted in para 5 of the complaint that the covered car parking area has been transferred in the name of complainant along with the property in question, the question deficiency of service does not arise at all. The schedule B property of the sale deed includes flat along with car parking space and same has been transferred to the complainant. The opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence. The complainant has filed documents. Heard, the arguments on both side. <br /> <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration:-<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complaint is entitled for relief asked for. <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is an admitted of the parties. The complainant has taken registered sale deed from the opposite party on 3-8-2007, the copy of sale deed is produced. As per the sale deed contents, it has been clearly stated that schedule B property along with flat, car parking space has been given to the complainant. When this is the case where is the question of now given direction to the opposite party to provide car parking space. If at all the complainant has not taken the car parking area as per the sale deed contents. The remedy open to him is to file a civil suit and he has to challenge the contents of the sale deed and prove his case before the civil court and get the relief their. The complaint before this Fora is not maintainable after the execution of sale deed. This opinion has been held by our own Hon’ble State Commission in the Judgement No.34/2009, dated 16/4/2009 of Mr. Jagadish.N. v/s The MD, Ittina Propeties Pvt., Ltd., and in Judgement No.3/2009, dated 18/06/2009 of Mr. P.S. Sridhar v/s M/s. Ittina Properties Pvt., Ltd. In view of the authority of Hon’ble State Commission the present complaint is not maintainable, secondly the sale deed executed on 3-8-2007 and the present complaint has been filed on 13-10-2009, i.e., more than 2 years of the execution of sale deed. Therefore, on the point of limitation also the complaint is not maintainable. Admittedly the complainant has not filed application for condonation of delay. The cause of action arose on the date of execution of sale deed, from that date complainant could have filed complaint within 2 years. Therefore, the complaint is barred by time. Taking into consideration any view of the matter the present complaint is not maintainable it deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 10TH DAY OF MAY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />