IMPORTANT POINT
When land owner sells flat of his share, he enters into shoes of builder.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner G.Jagannadha Rao & Anr. against the order dated 16.04.2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.1527/2007 along with application for condonation of delay of 2092 days.

2. Brief facts relevant for decision of this revision petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad (in short ‘the District Forum’) and the same was decided vide its order dated 31.07.2007 with the following order:-

“In view of our clear finding on point No.1 a careful perusal of the documents filed by both parties the complainant successfully proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. Hence, the opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to provide car parking area to the complainant, compensation of Rs.6,000/- along with costs of Rs.1000/-. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.

In the result, the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally are directed to provide car parking area to the complainant, pay compensation of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) along with costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant.

The complaint against opposite party No.4 is dismissed. This order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

3. The petitioners herein preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 16.04.2010. The petitioners then preferred Writ Petition No.11496 of 2010 before the High Court, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. However, the Writ Petition No.11496 of 2010 was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file the revision petition before the National Commission.

4. Hence the present revision petition.

5. Heard the learned proxy counsel Mr. J.P. Mishra, who argued on behalf of the petitioners under the authority given by the main counsel Mr. Y. Prabhakara Rao vide his authority letter dated 06.02.2018 also heard the respondent in person. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the High Court had allowed the petitioner to file writ petition till 11.04.2016 and the same has been filed within that time. Therefore, there is no question of any delay as the time spent before the High Court is not to be considered as part of limitation as per the provision of the Limitation Act. On merits the learned counsel contended that it was only the flat that was purchased by the respondent and not the parking space. Both the fora below have allowed the complaint of the respondent on the ground of A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). Learned counsel further contended that this Act is only applicable to the builder whereas the petitioner is land owner and therefore, this Act was not applicable in the present case. Hence, the orders passed by the fora below are illegal and may be set aside.

6. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 in person stated that the share of space given to the respondent includes the parking space and therefore, it is wrong to say that the parking space was not purchased. Moreover, the provisions of the Act are applicable in all the cases. Both the fora below have allowed the complaint on the basis of the provisions of the Act. There cannot be any contravention of the provision of the Act in any case. Hence, the revision petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. It was further stated by the respondent that by lingering on the litigation the petitioners are only trying to harass the respondent. The petitioners preferred a writ petition before the High Court against the order of the State Commission fully knowing that the filing of the revision petition was only remedy available to them. Thus, they have taken six years in the High Court to litigate the matter a