JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL)

The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Complainant against the order dated 03.01.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.13 of 2008 whereby his Complaint was dismissed.

2.      The admitted brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had booked a plot with the Respondent and entered into an agreement for sale dated 09.07.2003 and the possession of the

-2-

plot was handed over to the Complainant/Appellant vide a registered sale deed dated 31.05.2006.  The present Complaint had been filed on 12.03.2008 after almost two years of the execution of the sale deed.  The Complainant filed the Complaint alleging that area of the plot was reduced in the sense that the Respondent had given less area than what was promised in the sale purchase agreement dated 09.07.2003 and that an excess amount was taken from him.  He also contended that the Respondent was not justified in taking maintenance charges.  On these contentions, the Complainant filed a claim for refund of ₹4,84,400/- along with interest @ 18% pa. due to reduction in the plot size.  Besides that he has also claimed certain other benefits like refund of extra interest, excess deposit, plot malwa charges, fire fighting, club membership fees totalling ₹84,752/-  along with interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation of ₹15 Lakhs.

3.      The Respondent was served with the notice of the Complaint and they had filed their written version wherein they had denied their liability.

4.      Parties led their evidences before the State Commission.  After hearing the counsel for the parties, the State Commission reached to the conclusion as under:

-3-    

“The attention of Hon’ble Bench was drawn by the Counsel for the Opposite Party in the judgment titled as Smita roy Vs. Excel Construction & Anr. II (2012) CPJ 204(NC) passed by the Hon’ble National Commission.  In which, the possession of Flat in question was taken by the Complainant and no objection was made at the time of taking possession and therefore, no deficiency in service by the Opposite Party was found and the complaint was dismissed.

Undisputedly, the possession of land in question was handed over and sale deed was executed in favour of the complainants in the present case also.

In this circumstance, the stated amount which is demanded by the Complainant in the present case also is not accordance with law and there is no force in the complaint.  Hence, the present compliant is liable to be dismissed.”

5.      This order is impugned before me in the Appeal.  The admitted fact remains that the present Complaint had been filed after execution of the sale deed.  The sale deed was executed by the Petitioner on his own free will and there was no contention that he was made to sign the sale deed under coercion or undue influence.  No rights to challenge any clause of the provisional allotment letter had been reserved.  It has been held by this Commission in the case of “Pochampally Handloom House vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. OP No.38 of 2002”; by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Synco Industreis vs. State bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Manu/SC/0024/2004”; by this Commission in “Amit Chawla vs. parsvnath Developers Ltd. FA 1156 of 2014”

-4-

and “Mandeep Kumar Vs. Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Revision Petition No.4160 of 2014” that once a sale deed has been executed without demur, any agreement prior to that stands consumed within the sale deed and the Complainant cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the said agreement by filing the Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  This Commission in Mandeep Kumar’s case (supra) has held as under:

      “Moreover, on execution of conveyance deed in respect of the said flat on 28.01.2009, rights and obligations of the parties under the Hire Purchase agreement stood extinguished.  Thus, there was no occasion for him to allege deficiency of serice on the part of Respondent No.1 in not taking action for getting the alleged leakage/blockage rectified.  Having held so, the petitioner cannot be said to be “consumer” within the meaning of section 2(1) (d) of the Act, qua Respondent no.2, and therefore, a complaint under the Act was not maintainable against him.”

6.      In view of this settled proposition of law, I found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.  The present Appeal has              no merit and the same is dismissed.