The filing of a civil suit does not preclude a consumer from maintaining a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as remedies under the Act are independent and in addition to other legal remedies.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and learned counsel for the respondent no.3/State Bank of India.

2. The respondents no. 1 and 2/Builders & Developers in spite of service of notice have failed to appear and respond to this appeal.

3. The appellant/complainant filed complaint no. 234 of 2018 before the SCDRC Telangana (for short 'the State Commission') alleging deficiency in service against the respondents no. 1 and 2/Builders & Developers and against the respondent no.3/State Bank of India in respect of failure to deliver the flat that had been booked by the appellant/complainant, for which loan had been advanced by the respondent no.3/State Bank of India.

4. The allegation of the appellant/complainant was that the respondents no.1 and 2/Builders & Developers failed to construct the flat and deliver the same and also made an allegation against the respondent no.3/State Bank of India for not securing the documents of the appellant/complainant, as a result whereof the appellant/complainant had to pay the entire EMIs of the loan, which, according to the appellant/complainant, had already been paid off.

5. Learned counsel submits that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3/State Bank of India as well and consequently the complaint deserves to be allowed.

6. It appears that the appellant/complainant thereafter in the year 2019 filed Original Suit No. 303 of 2019 in the Civil Court in respect of the same property where a prayer was made to declare the sale transaction dated 13.08.2015 as void whereby the flat in question had been negotiated through the Central Bank of India with one Taherrunisa Begum. The respondent no.3/State Bank of India is defendant no.6 in the said suit and the respondents no. 1 and 2/Builders & Developers are defendants no. 1 and 3. A copy of the plaint has been produced before us during the course of the arguments. The suit is for specific performance for delivery of the same flat on an agreement of sale dated 02.08.2008 as well as for declaration of the intervening sale deed as void in favour of Taherrunisa Begum.

7. The State Commission issued notices in the complaint but the respondents no. 1 and 2/Builders & Developers did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte. The respondent no.3/State Bank of India filed a written version and while admitting the grant of a Home Loan to the appellant/complainant, it pleaded that there was no deficiency on its part and the terms and conditions of the loan were justified and there was no element of any deficiency.

8. The State Commission came to the conclusion that in the absence of any specific agreement or promise and assurance given by the opposite parties/respondents, since there was a simple agreement of sale, the complaint could not be entertained and, therefore, since a civil suit had already been filed, the opposite parties no.1 and 2, respondents no. 1 and 2 herein, cannot be made liable for any deficiency. Paras 9 and 10 of the impugned order are extracted hereunder:

"9. On perusal of Ex.A3 it is observed that, it is a simple agreement of sale. Which conveys the right of immovable property i.e., Flat No.406 as described under Schedule of property in Ex.A3. The said document is not accompanied with any plan or specifications for construction / development through it has a clause to that effect, for better understanding the said clause is reproduced here:

The vendors have assured to construct the flat as per the plan; design and specification annexed here to and hand over possession of the vendee within 18 months from the dat