Date of filing : 15.06.2009<br /> <br /> Date of Order: 30.04.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> <br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> <br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1376 OF 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Ms. Sagarika Bhattacharjee<br /> <br /> D/o. Dr. P. Bhattacharjee<br /> <br /> Rep. by G.P.A. holder<br /> <br /> Pratip Bhattacharjee<br /> <br /> R/o N145AG, Kailash 1<br /> <br /> New Delhi 48<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Madhumita Bhattacharjee<br /> <br /> W/o. P. Bhattacharjee<br /> <br /> R/o N145AG, Kailash – 1<br /> <br /> New Delhi 48 Complainants<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Kirloskar Investments & Finance Ltd.<br /> <br /> A company incorporated under the <br /> <br /> Provision of the Company Act having its<br /> <br /> Registered Office at Unity Building<br /> <br /> 2nd Floor, J.C. Road, Bangalore 560 002<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Secretary<br /> <br /> Madhuban Brindhavan Apartment<br /> <br /> No. 66/1, 2, 3, 4, Adugodi<br /> <br /> Hosur Main, Bangalore 560 030 Opposite parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the opposite parties to allot car parking No. 6 as assured in the sale deed and compensation.<br /> <br /> The facts of the case are that opposite party No. 1 is a developer and opposite party No. 2 is an association. Opposite party No. 1 completed the construction of apartment and executed sale deed in favour of complainant on 26.03.2003. Opposite party No. 1 gave assurance that open reserved car parking bearing No. 6 was allotted to him and same would be handed over in a short period. It was mentioned in the sale deed that complainant has been allotted car parking No. 6. Complainant has paid extra cost of Rs. 50,000/- for car parking space. Complainant wrote letters to opposite party seeking allotment of car parking. There was no response. The opposite parties are shifting responsibility for allotting the car parking space. Hence, the complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite parties have filed version stating that sale deed was executed on 26.03.2003. Opposite party No. 2 is an association of owners of flats. Opposite party No. 1 has filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 6622/2004 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Suit is pending. The said suit is filed against present opposite party No. 2. Pendency of suit is in the knowledge of complainant. Allotment of open reserved car parking No. 6 is already reflected in the sale deed executed by opposite party No. 1. Question of handing over the car parking area does not arise. Complainant has no right to file case against opposite party No. 1. <br /> <br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 in a separate defence version submitted that complainant is claiming car parking facility in the common area which is illegal. Opposite party No. 1 has filed suit against opposite party No. 2 and other residents of opposite party No. 2 in respect of car parking in common area and also for other reliefs suit is pending. The complainant has come to forum after lapse of 6 years from the date of sale deed. Therefore, complaint is barred by limitation. For all these reasons stated above the opposite parties have prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. Respective parties have filed affidavit evidence. <br /> <br /> 5. Arguments are heard.<br /> <br /> 6. The points for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complaint is barred by time?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complaint is maintainable? <br /> <br /> 7. Admittedly, the complainant has taken sale deed in respect of flat on 26.03.2003 and he submitted that opposite party No. 1 has collected Rs. 50,000/- for car parking space. It is specific case of the complainant that in the sale deed there is clear mention of open reserved car carking No. 6 to the complainant. When this is the case the complaint filed by the complainant in the year 2009 is hopelessly barred by time. Admittedly, sale deed had been executed in favour of complainant on 26.03.2003. If at all he had not been given possession of the car parking area the complainant could have filed the complaint within two years from the date of execution of sale deed. The complainant even not filed any application for condonation of delay. Therefore, on the point of delay itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, already sale deed having taken place long back, the question of deficiency of service does not arise after the execution of sale deed. If the complainant has got any grievance of not giving car parking space he has to approach the Civil Court for getting relief. The Hon’ble State Commission already has held that after execution of sale deed question of issuing directions to opposite parties does not arise in complaint No. 34/2009 decided on 16.04.2009 and in complaint No. 3/2009 decided on 18.06.2009. In view of the above authorities also the present complaint is not maintainable. Thirdly, admittedly, a civil suit has been filed by opposite party No. 1 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore and it is pending for disposal. When this is the case matters shall have to be decided in the civil suit. This fora cannot grant any relief to the complainant when the matter is already been seized by the civil Court. On this ground also the present complaint is not maintainable. Taking any view of the matter and on the facts and circumstances of the case the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 8. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER