This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 15-12-11 in the presence of Sri V. Tirumala Rao, advocate for the complainant and of Smt K. Padmasree, advocate for opposite parties 1 to 6, upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant association filed this complaint u/s 12 of the CPA seeking a direction to the opposite parties to handover the original title deed dated 16-03-05 and registered agreement/GPA dated                04-04-05 to it; Rs.50,000/- as damages towards mental agony and for costs.

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The opposite parties 2 to 5 constituted a firm namely M/s Vijaya Durga Constructions (OP1).   The opposite parties constructed 25 flats and sold them to the members of complainant association.  Even after the sale of all the flats the opposite parties did not handover the original title deed to the present flat owners’ inspite of demand and notice dated 23-03-10.   The opposite parties paid deaf ear and postponed the delivery of original title deed on some pretext or other.   The above conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The opposite parties 1, 3 to 6 adopted the version of the                      2^nd opposite party and their contention in brief is hereunder:

        The 2^nd opposite party after receiving notice from the complainant informed its members that it is not possible for them to handover the original sale deed dated 16-03-05 and registered agreement/GPA dated 04-04-05 to them as they still possess some more extent of site.    The complaint is not maintainable for want of authorization/resolution authorizing the person who signed the complaint.   The complainant association is not a registered society.   The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-14 on behalf of complainant and Ex.B-1 on behalf of opposite parties were marked respectively.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the opposite party still retained the site after selling all the flats?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
4. To what relief?

6.   POINTS 1 to 3:-   The opposite parties selling all the flats are not in dispute.   The complainant issuing notice on 23-03-10 (Ex.A-6                & A-7) is also not in dispute.  The question to be determined is whether the opposite parties still possess any site after selling all the flats.  

7.      The complainant association was registered on 08-04-08 under the Act 35 of 2001 as seen from Ex.A-3.    The 1^st opposite party firm was registered under the Partnership Act on 28-04-05 as seen from Ex.A-2.    Ex.B-1 is the copy of registered sale deed dated 16-03-05 in favour of the partners of the 1^st opposite party firm.  The total extent covered by Ex.B-1 is 1205 sq.yds or 1007.53 sq.mts.   As per Ex.A-12 plan the total site area was 948.38 sq.mts., an extent of 80.72 sq. mts., was set apart for road widening and the net site area was 867.66 sq.mts. 

8.      Smt V. Annapurna, advocate was appointed as commissioner to note the physical features in IA 437 of 2011.   The learned advocate commissioner executed warrant and filed report and mentioned the measurements of the schedule property as follows:

        a.  East     : As per the plan it is 24.46 sq.mts and according to

                         my measurement it is 24.50 sq. mts. – Municipal                            wide road.

        b. West     : As per the plan it is 24.30 sq.mts and according to

                         my measurement it is 24.30 sq. mts. – Property of

                        G. Sai Baba.

        c. South    :As per the plan it is 41.91 sq.mts and according to

                         my measurement it is also 41.90 sq.mts. – Property                                of K. Rama Rao

        d. North    : As per the plan it is 35.89 sq.mts and according to

                         my measurement it is 35.82 sq.mts. – Municipal                              road.

9.   No doubt the opposite parties did not mention on which direction they got site as rightly contended by the complainant.   If the area mentioned in Ex.B-1 sale deed is deducted from the area mentioned in Ex.A-12 plan the 1^st opposite party firm still possess i.e., 59.15 sq. mts of site.   Whether the said extent of 59.15 sq. mts. of site was situated outside the compound wall of M/s Sri Vijaya Durga Residency or inside of M/s Sri Vijaya Durga Residency cannot be gone into in this complaint in view of summary nature of proceedings.   Deciding the location of remaining extent, in our considered opinion amount to converting this complaint into a title suit which is not permissible under the Consumer Protection Act.  Going through the measurements mentioned in Ex.B-1 and Ex.A-12 the contention of the opposite party is having considerable force.   In view of the above discussion we opine that the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service and as such the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.    We therefore answer these points against the complainant. 

10.  POINT No.4:-   in view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 21^st day of December, 2011.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties :  

                                                                                             PRESIDENT