O  R  D  E  R

(As per the Honourable President (FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1. The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainant purchased a Residential Flat from the Opposite Party  situated in Ground Floor 103, Hemasri Sourya Nirman, Reshapuvanipalem, Waltair, Visakhapatnam. The complainants purchased the above flat in an extent of 1350sft and the complainants paid Rs.23,35,000/- @ 1700 per sq.ft. The sale deed was registered on 17-08-2012 at Sub-Registrar of Visakhapatnam. On 18-01-2013, the Complainants performed Gruhapravesam in the above flat. During the Gruhapravesam, friends of the Complainant expressed  doubt on the extent of the flat which did not look to be of 1350sft but less than that. Due to this, the complainants brought the same to the notice of the Opposite Party and requested her to measure it in order to clarify on the extent of the flat. The Opposite Party arranged for the measurement in their presence itself.  After the measurement was over it was found that the extent of flat is not more than 1200sft.  The complainants questioned about the extent of the flat and the Opposite Party did not prove that flat is of 1350sft. Then the complainants asked the Opposite Party to return the excess amount of Rs.2,55,000/- as she had taken for 150sft which is not there. In spite of many requirements made by the complainants to return the excess amount as paid by them but the OP did not respondent for it. The complainants handover the keys to the Opposite Party. After the completion of repair works, the Opposite Party informed the complainants that the repair work is over and asked them to take back the keys of the flat by paying Rs.3,40,000/-. The repair works costed for Rs.70,000/- and the complainants were due of Rs.2,70,000/-. Though the complainant paid entire amount at the time of sale deed, the OP demanded excess amount. Then the complainant issued a legal notice and the Opposite Party received the same and sent a reply with false reasons  and hence this complaint.

1. to number this petition and send notice to the Opposite Party;
2. to pass an award in favour of the complainants for Rs.3,91,000/- towards compensation, excess amount and also cost of the proceedings;
3. and to pass such other order/s which the Honourable Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances.

2.   The Opposite Party did not resist the claim of the complainants as they were set exaprte and remained exparte.

3.   At the time of hearing, the complainants filed affidavit and written arguments to support their contentions. Exhibits A-1 to A-4 are marked for the Complainants.  Heard the complainants.

Exhibit A1 is the certified copy of Registered sale deed dated 17-08-2012, Exhibit A2 is the office copy of the Registered Legal Notice issued by the Complainants to the Opposite Party dated 25-07-2013, Exhibit A3 is the Postal Acknowledgment from the Opposite Party dated 30-07-2013 and Exhibits A4 is the original Reply Legal Notice issued by the Opposite Party dated 12-09-2013.

4.   The fact shown from the document i.e., Exhibit A1 reveals that the Vendor had purchased 34sq.yds being undivided and unspecified share in 415.245sq.yds out of total extent of 830.49sq.yds together with unfinished level residential Flat No.103 in Ground Floor with a plinth area of 1350sft (including common areas and balconies), car parking measuring 100sft. The vendor intends to sell away the above said property which is more fully described in the scheduled mentioned in the complaint for her necessities and the vendees want to purchase the same and offer for a sale consideration amount of Rs.23,35,000/-.

5.   The point that would arise for determination in the case is:

  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of     the OP? if so, Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?

6.   After careful perusal of the case record, this forum      finds that the complainant is not a consumer by any   stretch of imagination. There is no piece of evidence      placed before this forum that the OPs is a builder. Exhibit A1 sale deed establishes the fact that basic      transaction is a person to person sale. Purchase- a property deal simple and    pure. As such, the said      transaction does not come within the purview of the    Consumer Protection Act. As such, this Forum has no    jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. The     complainant      has to approach a Civil Court for her redressal      of her      grievance, if any. Hence, this complaint is liable   to be dismissed in limini.

7.   In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 1^st day of July, 2014.

Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

Male Member                                     President

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

For the Complainants:

For the Opposite Party :-    -nil-    
 

Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

Male Member                                     President