Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member
Madhavi Gautam Nahar and Ors. —Appellants
versus
M/s. Anand Shelters
Developers and Builders
Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal Nos.295, 296, 420 and 421 of 2016
Decided on 1.7.2019
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(d) and 21—First Appeal—Dispute of two flats having similar nature—Flats are vacant and in the possession of the builder—Rs 01 lac given to builder by cheque—No agreement executed in favour complainant—Complainant is recorded as the tax assesse of flat and has paid property tax—Mere recording as assesse for the purpose of property tax in a municipality does not bestow title—Flat is purchased by another person—Relationship between alleged purchaser and one of director of company—Case of complainants require recording of extensive oral evidence and proving extensive documentary evidence as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and adherence to the substantive and procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that is best undertaken in a civil court—Claim of contenders can not be adjudicated in summery proceeding—Two non-parties having interest in flats but not made party—Many directions issued—Held that, two complainants and the said two non-parties are free to seek remedy in a competent civil court with cost of 50,000 on parties of both sides. [Paras 10, 15, 19, 24, 25 and 29]
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Dinesh Singh, Member—The substantive question in consumer complaints no. 319 of 2011 and no. 320 of 2011 is whether or not the complainants are entitled to due lawful possession and registration of the respective subject flats.
2. C.C. No. 319 of 2011 and C.C. No. 320 of 2011 have been allowed in favour of the complainants by the State Commission vide its common Order dated 16.02.2016:—
Order
a. The complaint nos. CC/11/319 & CC/11/320 are hereby allowed.
b. The opponents are directed to execute Sale Deed in respect of the flats in the name of the complainants after accepting the remaining amount of consideration and hand over the peaceful possession to the complainants.
c. The opponents are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in each complaint to the complainants for mental agony and harassment.
d. The parties to bear their own costs.
(extract from the State Commission’s common Order dated 16.02.2016)
3. The parties in the two c.c.s are as below:—
Mrs. Madhavi Gautam Nahar – complainant in c.c. no. 319 of 2011
Mrs. Pallavi Rahul Luniya – complainant in c.c. no. 320 of 2011
Versus
M/s Anand Shelters Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Through its Directors – opposite party no. 1 (in both c.c.s)
Mr. Balasaheb Shankarrao Ganjave Director – opposite party no. 1.A. (in both c.c.s)
Mr. Rajendra Bankelal Goyal Director – opposite party no. 1.B. (in both c.c.s)
Mr. Rasik Zhumberlal Luniya Director – opposite party no. 1.C. (in both c.c.s)
4. First appeals no. 295 of 2016 and no. 420 of 2016 have arisen from consumer complaint no. 319 of 2011 before the State Commission.
First appeal no. 295 of 2016 has been filed by Madhavi Gautam Nahar, the complainant in c.c. no. 319 of 2011, for enhancement in compensation, in which the respondents are the builder co., M/s Anand Shelters Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party no. 1, and its three Directors, Balasaheb Shankarrao Ganjave, the opposite party no. 1.A., Rajendra Bankelal Goyal, the opposite party no. 1.B., and Rasik Zhumerlal Luniya, the opposite party no. 1.C.
First appeal no. 420 of 2016 has been filed by Balasaheb Shankarrao Ganjave, the opposite party no. 1.A. and Rajendra Bankelal Goyal, the opposite party no. 1.B. in c.c. no. 319 of 2011, for setting-aside the Order dated 16.02.2016 of the State Commission, in which the respondents are Madhavi Gautam Nahar, the complainant in c.c. no. 319 of 2011, Rasik Zhumerlal Luniya, the opposite party no. 1.C. and the builder co., M/s Anand Shelters Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party no. 1.
5. First appeals no. 296 of 2016 and no. 421 of 2016 have arisen from consumer complaint no. 320 of 2011 before the State Commission.
First appeal no. 296 of 2016 has been filed by Pallavi Rahul Luniya, the complainant in c.c. no. 320 of 2011, for enhancement in compensation, in which the respondents are the builder co., M/s. Anand Shelters Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party no. 1, and its three Directors, Balasaheb Shankarrao Ganjave, the opposite party no. 1.A., Rajendra Bankelal Goyal, the opposite party no. 1.B. and Rasik Zhumerlal Luniya, the opposite party no. 1.C.
First appeal no. 421 of 2016 has been filed by Balasaheb Shankarrao Ganjave, the opposite party no. 1.A. and Rajendra Bankelal Goyal, the opposite party no. 1.B. in c.c. no. 320 of 2011, for setting-aside the Order dated 16.02.2016 of the State Commission, in which the respondents are Pallavi Rahul Luniya, the complainant in c.c. no. 320 of 2011, Rasik Zhumerlal Luniya, the opposite party no. 1.C. and the builder co., M/s Anand Shelters Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party no. 1.
6. On 29.04.2019, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel present, and after perusing the material on record, and after the due consideration, we recorded the sum and substance of our considered view in the daily Order:—
Dated: 29.04.2019
ORDER
Heard the learned counsels for both sides.
Perused the material on record.
The compla
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
