Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/100/2015

Pathi Guru Naga Vinay Kumar Rep By His Father GPA Holder, Pathi Geethanandham - Complainant(s)

Versus

Puchakatla Sreenivasulu, S/o Vemaiah - Opp.Party(s)

CP.Suresh

13 Sep 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing     :06-10-2015

                                                                             Date of Disposal:13-09-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Wednesday, this the 13^th  day of  SEPTEMBER, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

 

C.C.No.100/2015

 

Pathi Guru Naga Vinay Kumar,

Aged 31 years,

S/o.Geethanandam, R/o.Door No.6/1/89,

CBC Plaza, Ground Floor,

Prakash Nagar, Stonehousepeta,

Nellore.

 

Represented by his father GPA Holder,

Pathi Geethanandham,

Aged 62 years,

S/o.Late Sivaramaih,

R/o.Door No.6/1/89,

CBC  Plaza, Ground Floor,

Prakash Nagar, Stonehousepeta,

Nellore.                                                                                      ..… Complainant        

                                                             Vs.

1.	Puchakatla Srinivasulu, S/o.Vemaiah, R/o.Ummayapalli Village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2.	Gaddam  Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o.Janaki Rami Reddy, R/o.Door No.27/1/1060, Opposite Geethanjali School, Laxmi Nagar, Balaji Nagar, Nellore City.                                                                        ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

          This complaint coming on 12-09-2017 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri  Malireddy .S, advocate for the complainant and                                    Sri P. Gangadhara Reddy, advocate for the opposite party No.1 and                     Sri Ch.V. Ramanaiah, advocate for the opposite party No.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2  under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to  allot a new parking place  with  full access and exist from the parking place without any obstructions  and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

2.    The brief averments of the complaint are as follows that: the complainant purchased one residential plot in Sri Sai Charan Residential Complex  ground floor  No.G2  from the 1^st opposite party by way of registered sale deed                         dated 28-11-2012 along with car parking facility. The 2^nd opposite party is the builder of the said Sri Sai Chara Residential Complex.  The complainant also purchased car parking place for his plot No.G2 in extent of 75 square feet. Thereafter the 2^nd opposite party allotted the car parking place to the complainant in ground floor with serial No.15. Thereafter  the complainant observed that the car parking site allotted with serial No.15 to him has no access to park his car in the said  allotted area.  A car cannot reach the   place allotted in serial No.15 as the said car parking place was covered three sides with other car parking areas and  one side there is a wall of the lift.  Therefore the complainant cannot park his vehicle / car  in the allotted site bearing No.15. The complainant also observed that when  he  measured the extent of car parking area and found that it is less than  75  square feet and he also observed that even his Maruthi 800  car cannot  park in the tiny parking place as per the norms of the agreement  for car parking.  Car  parking should be given to heavy cars also.  But the place allotted to the complainant is not suitable even to a small Maruthi 800 car.  The complainant made several requests to opposite parties  to change the car parking place bearing No.15, but the opposite parties did not care of the request made by complainant and did not change  the place of car parking of complainant.  The complainant has been suffering serious troubles when he tries to park his vehicle in the said allotted place with other plot owners.  The complainant also has been suffering with agony by the negligent acts of  opposite parties.

The complainant submits that  as he purchased the plot from the opposite parties  and became   a consumer.   As the  opposite parties failed to allot car parking place to the complainant  as such there is deficiency  of service from the opposite parties. The complainant submits that as  severely suffered by  the acts of the opposite party, the  complainant  got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 16-02-2015 wherein demanding them the change the  car parking place to new place with full access  and exist from the  parking place without any obstructions.  The opposite parties received the notices but did not change  the parking place to the complainant so far and submits to allow the complaint  with costs.

3.   The opposite party No.1 filed written version with the following averments that: on perusal of the pleadings of the complaint that there is  a title dispute with regard to the allotment of car parking to the complainant. Therefore  this  appears  that there is a civil dispute in nature.  In the circumstances, this  Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to  adjudicate this matter and  on  this ground alone this complaint may be dismissed. 

         The opposite party No.1 further submits the alleged GPA is not enforceable in the eyes of law; as it is neither registered nor validated under the provisions of Indian Registration Act, and Indian Stamp Act;   since the grievance involved with the immovable property. 

The  opposite party No.1 submits that  the complainant  offered to purchase one residential flat i.e., No.G2 Ground Floor Sri Sai Charan Residential Complex, from the 1^st opposite party for a sum ofRs.20,00,000/-  and  this opposite party  accepted   for the same.   In pursuance of the said offer and acceptance this opposite party executed registered sale deed dated 28-11-2012  in document  No.4944/2012 in favour of  this complainant and delivered possession  of the same after receiving  entire sale consideration.  The opposite party No.1 submits that he purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 19-11-2010 in document No.6714/2010 (un-divided extent) from Bandi Renuka Reddy and Registered Builder Agreement dated  19-11-2010 in  document No.6715/2010 from Gaddam Srinivasulu Reddy respectively.  It is submitted that prior    to purchase of the said property the complainant and  his  father personally verified the said flat;  car parking and link documents in respect thereof.  On satisfaction of the same the complainant purchased the said flat   from this opposite party.  The complainant has not filed copies of the said registered documents before this Forum with  an intention to misguide this Forum.

The opposite party No.1 submits that the complainant before the purchase of a residential flat in Sri Sai Charan Residential Complex, Ground Floor No.G2 from the 1^st opposite party,  complainant measured the car parking area and satisfied with the flat and site allotted to him for his car parking and if the complainant is not satisfied with the said site allotted for his car parking; he would have to raised the objection to that effect before he purchased the flat and that  he  has not done so.  Complainant  got registered the said flat and its car parking and kept quiet for  all these days and now he filed this complaint with false and frivolous allegations  against the opposite parties in order to harass and cause inconvenience to them with an ulterior motto to get wrongful gain.

The opposite party No.1 submits that  the opposite party No.1 transferred the rights over the property which he already have   and obtained from his vendors i.e., 2^nd opposite party and one Smt.Bandi Renuka Reddy and  the purchaser  will gain only the rights what so ever the vendors  will have at the time of registration over the said property.  Hence as there is no deficiency  of service , the opposite party No.1 submits for dismissal of the complaint against the opposite party No.1 with costs.

4.    The opposite party No.2 filed  version with the following averments that:  there is no  any privity of contract between this opposite party and the complainant and this opposite party is no way liable and responsible for the  relief prayed by the complainant. The opposite party No.2 further  submits  that the complainant has not filed any documents to show that  the opposite party No.2 allotted car parking area to the complainant as stated in the complaint.

The opposite party No.2 submits that  all the car parking areas were allotted and all the car parking areas were fully engaged no vacant  car parking area available to allot to the complainant.  Hence, there is no question of allotting new car parking area to the complainant at this stage.  No additional or others rights can be claimed  by the purchaser / complainant from the vendor / 1^st opposite party except whatsoever the document  contains and reveals at the time of purchase of the said property. 

The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and  he suppressed true and correct facts and got filed  this complaint before this  Forum to get wrongful  gain and  cause inconvenience and loss to this opposite party.  The opposite party No.2  submits that this complainant is not a Consumer under  the purview of Consumer Protection Act and the  complainant is not entitled any relief sought for in the complaint and submits for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.     On behalf of  complainant, the affidavit  of complainant was filed and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. 

6.     On behalf of the opposite party No.1, the affidavit of R.W.1 was filed and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked and on behalf of opposite party No.2, affidavit of  R.W.2 filed.

7.     Written arguments on behalf of  complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 filed.

8.     Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of both parties.

9.     Arguments on behalf of learned counsels for both parties heard.

10.     Now the points for consideration are:

        (1)Whether  the complaint filed  by the complainant  against the opposite

              parties 1 and 2 under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 

             is maintainable?

 

        (2) To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

 

       11.     POINT NO.1:The learned counsel  for the complainant submits by filing  a written arguments and Exs.A1 to A6 that the complainant purchased the  property along with the  car parking  site from the opposite parties 1 and 2 but there is no such car parking site as noted in Ex.A1 registered sale deed and thus  as the opposite parties 1 and 2 committed  act of  deficiency of service and hence the complainant  filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 for providing  new parking place   with  full  access  and exist from   a parking   place without any obstructions and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

            On the  other hand, the learned  counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 submits by relying  upon Exs.B1 toB3 that as dispute is relating to immovable property, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and submits for dismissal of the complaint.

           By relying upon   arguments  submitted  by the learned counsels for both parties and  as seen from the   contention of the both parties, there  is no dispute about the title of the complainant over the  property covered under Ex.A1 and  it is also an admitted fact that the opposite party No.1 sold the property  to the  complainant under Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 28-11-2012 in which  the complainant purchased 75 Sq. fts. Car parking area.  It is also an admitted fact that the opposite party No.2 was   builder and he sold the property to the  opposite party No.1.  The complainant did not purchased the property  from the builder i.e., the opposite party No.2,  the complainant  purchased car parking area including  the house   from the opposite party No.1.  In these circumstances we are of the opinion that  the dispute   is over immovable  property and hence   there is no deficiency in service in relation to immovable property.

In Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta reported in AIR 1994 S.C. 787, 1993 (3) CPJ 7 (SC).

      Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain  a complaint relating to  a dispute over immovable property.

         Following  the above decisions, we are of the opinion that as the  dispute is relating to proving a car parking  site and as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.2 , as opposite party  No.2  sold  the property to the opposite party No.1 from which the complainant purchased from the opposite party No.1 under Ex.A1 registered sale deed.

          By relying upon the above decision and  the facts of the case , we are of the opinion  that  as the dispute is relating to immovable property, we are of the opinion that this Forum has  no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant and hence the complaint filed by the complainant   is not maintainable with costs.

          By relying upon the above decision and discussion made above, we answered this point against the complainant.

          12. POINT No.2:In view of our  answering on point No.1 against the  complainant and in favour of the opposite parties 1 and 2, the complaint filed by the complainant has to be dismissed.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances, no costs.

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  13^th day of   SEPTEMBER, 2017.

 

            Sd/-                                                                                                    Sd/-

      MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -	21-06-2016	Sri Pathi Geethanandam, S/o.Late Sivaramaiah, Nellore (Affidavit filed).
P.W.2  -	09-12-2016	Sri Kareti Prasad Reddy, S/o.Ramireddy, Nellore-4.

 

 

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -	06-04-2016	Sri Puchakatla Srinivasulu,S/o.Vemaiah, SPSR Nellore District. (Affidavit filed).
R.W.2  -	06-04-2016	Sri Gaddam Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o.Janaki Rami Reddy, Nellore (Affidavit filed).

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	28-11-2012	Attested copy of agreement between complainant and the opposite party No.1.
Ex.A2  -	13-08-2015	Photostat copy of  General Power of Attorney between Pathi Geethanandam, Nellore and  complainant.
Ex.A3  -	16-02-2015	Legal notice from complainant’s advocate to the  opposite parties alongwith registered post receipt.
Ex.A4  -		Served postal acknowledgement received from Gaddam Srinivasulu Reddy.
Ex.A5  -	11-05-2015	Complaint-Settled Reply from Superintendent of Posts,Nellore Division to the complainant’s advocate.
Ex.A6  -		Nine Photographs

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1  -	19-11-2010	Photostat copy of  Sale deed  between Puchakatla Srinivasulu and Bandi Renuka Reddy.
Ex.B2  -		Photostat copies of Agreement for Construction of Flat, Receipt No.19921, dated 19-01-2010 and challan.
Ex.B3  -	28-11-2012	Photostat copies  of agreement between complainant and the opposite party No.1, identity card of Puchakatla Sriniasulu, passport of  Guru Naga Vinoy Kumar, Aadhars of Pathi Geethanandam and Pathi Geethavani and  receipt              dated 26-11-2012.

 

                                                                                                                                Id/-

                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri  S.Malireddy, Advocate, Santhi Nagar, Nellore-524 003.
2.	Sri P.Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate, 23/826/1, Ramesh Reddy Nagar,                Nellore-524 003.
3.	Sri Ch.V. Ramanaiah, Advocate, Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: