The consumer fora are not equipped to decide complex issues requiring extensive evidence, and such matters should be addressed through the Civil Court.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member. This first appeal has been preferred under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 12.10.2010, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 51/2007.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, the sole owner of property bearing Municipal Nos. 3-4-232 to 235,3-4-236/1, 2 and 3, admeasuring 550 Sq. Yards, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, entered into a Development Agreement dated 2.3.2001, for the development of a Commercial cum Residential Complex in the said property. As per Clause 2 of the said Agreement, the opposite parties were to construct and deliver 50% of the total constructed area proportionately on each floor as per the Municipal Permit to be obtained by them. As per Clause 10, the parking areas in the stilt were to be divided between the complainant and the opposite parties on 50:50 basis. It is the case of the complainant that he vacated the property on 26.4.2001 and handed over the same to the opposites parties on the said date. The opposite parties demolished the existing structures on the said property within a period of two months, however, the opposite parties obtained the Municipal Sanction only on 9.10.2002, although they were required to obtain the municipal sanction within 60 days from the date of granting possession as per Clause 18. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties are guilty of deviating from the sanctioned plan, thus the complainant had to bear an additional charge of Rs. 1,00,000 as legal expenses to defend himself in the different suits/cases instituted against him in this regard. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties failed to construct the complex and deliver 50% share to the complainant within the stipulated time i.e. 18 months from the date of obtaining permission as provided in Clause 18. It has been further alleged that opposite parties failed to deliver 50% of the constructed area floor wise and the parking area in the property to the complainant in accordance with Agreement. It is the case of the complainant that when he demanded his 50% share in the entire constructed area, the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 informed him that they would obtain a supplemental permission from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and make further constructions. Acting on this assurance, the complainant cooperated with the opposite parties and executed and registered the Sale Deeds with respect to the 8 flats in the first four floor, totally admeasuring 8,992 sq.ft., in favour of the purchasers. It is also the case of the complainant that he was made to sign the sale deeds even without an opportunity to go through the contents, hence, only at a belated stage the complainant came to know that it was mentioned that the entire sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 69,60,000 was already received by the complainant. In this regard, the complainant submitted that the entire amount was received by the OP and not the complainant. The complainant has also alleged that the OP have inducted purchasers into possession even without delivering complainant his share of 50% of constructed area and the complainant's requests for his share and to get the sale deeds rectified were not acceded to.

3. According to the complainant, out of the total constructed area of 10,992 sq.ft., the complainant is still entitled for 3,496 sq.ft. of the constructed area with proportionate parking area apart from the 2,000 sq.ft. already received. It is the case of the complainant that the refund of the security deposit to the OP by the complainant was waived off in lieu of the Advocate Office which was to be constructed on the top floor of the complex. In this context, a MOU dated 5.12.2005 has been alleged to have been entered into between the parties. Nevertheless, the OP failed to mak