The facts of the case in short is as follows :
The Complaint Case is that the Complainant made an agreement with O.P. No. 5 for purchasing a flat. This agreement was also done with the owner of the land O.P. No. 1 to 4. The Complainant took loan from DHFL in order to purchase the said Flat. After completion of the Flat the Complainant inspected the Flat which was not in habitable condition, without any other opportunities for living. The Complainant paid the consideration money. But the O.P. No. 5 did not deliver the possession of the Flat to the Complainant. The Complainant served notice. But O.P. did not pay any heed to the notice. The O.P. also did not deliver Khass possession of the Flat after finishing the Flat. It is pertinent to mention that Complainant got duplicate key from the O.P. (Para 5).
Hence this case.
The O.P. No. 5 filed W/V denying, inter alia, all material allegations raised by the Complainant. In Para 11, O.P. No. 5 stated that the O.P. has no liability and obligation towards the Petitioner after registration of sale deed as the Petitioner took possession of the Flat on the date of registration of the sale deed. There is no negligence on the part of the answering O.P. and no deficiency in service.
O.P. No. 1 to 4 appeared in this Forum and filed W/V denying, inter alia, all the material allegations and stated that O.P. No. 5 is responsible to counter the claim of complainant and they, being the owner of land, had no liability. O.P. No. 1 to 4 inter an agreement with O.P. No. 5 regarding the developing of their land. So they have nothing to do in this case.
POINTS FOR DECISIONS
- If the Complaint is maintainable?
- If the Complainant has proved his claim?
- To what relief /reliefs the Complainant is entitled to get?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The three points are taken together for discussion. The Complainant has filed Evidence-in-Chief on oath and Xerox copy of agreement. The O.P. No.1 to 4 have also filed Evidence-in-Chief. O.P. No. 5 did not file any evidence. But one sale deed has been filed by the Complainant. Complainant and O.P. No. 1 & 4 have also filed Written Notes of Argument. It appears from the record as well as evidence of both sides that the O.P. No. 5 has already registered the sale deed in favour of the Complainant. The complainant has denied possession but Complainant in Petition (Para 5) stated that Complainant received the key of the room from O.P. No. 5 and the statement of Complainant categorically shows that O.P. No. 5 has conveyed the deed by registration and the conduct of the OP No. 5, by handing over the key of the Flat shows that Complainant is in possession. That may be constructed possession or may be actual possession. When the deed of conveyance has been registered and executed by O.P. No. 5 in favour of the Complainant the complainant has no claim against O.P. No. 5. Then there had been no cause of action left to be carried out by O.P. No. 5. So, all the materials in record fails to inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum that complainant has succeeded to prove his case regarding deficiency in service of O.P. No. 5.
O R D E R
Accordingly, it is ordered that the Case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a copy of this Order be made over to the parties free of cost.
