Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Narne Sukanya vs The State Of Ap on 26 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No.27391 OF 2024
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice G. Narendar) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Forum on the petition filed under Sub-Section 8 of Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to reject the complaint in C.C.No.385/2023. The said petition came to be rejected for the reasons recorded therein.
3. The facts are not in dispute. We have perused the complaint more particularly paragraph no.IV which details the cause of action and paragraph no.VI which details the relief sought for. In paragraph no.IV, it is pleaded that the cause of action arose on account of unfair trade practice and the deficient service rendered by the opposite party. The relief sought for are in the following nature.
a) To regularize the cancellation plan RC.No.582/2001,
b) To direct the opposite party to submit occupancy certificate,
c) To direct payment of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees forty five lakhs only) to the complainant towards compensation,
d) To direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) to the complainant towards mental agony costs, 2
e) To direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards litigation charges to the complainant,
f) To direct the opposite parties to fix the boundaries of 2420 sq.yards and survey certificate to the complainant,
g) To direct the opposite party to pay 12% interest from the date of sale deed till realization,
h) To direct the opposite parties not to construct the pent house.
4. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the complainant does not seek any relief which would require the Consumer Forum to render a finding that the opposite party had cheated or played a fraud and thereby holding the opposite party as culpable of committing any criminal act.
5. The relief sought for are reliefs that can be gone into and considered and granted or rejected by the Forum. In essence, the reliefs sought for, pray's for regularization of the sanctioned building plan that is alleged to have been cancelled by the authorities and thus perfect their title over the apartment conveyed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant or in the alternative they have sought for compensation in terms of money with interest. These are reliefs which can be granted either by the Consumer Forum or the RERA (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) authorities. In fact, the scope of enquiry by the RERA authorities is much wider. Hence we 3 do not find any error in the order passed by the Forum with regard to maintainability of the complaint.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition being misconceived stands rejected. There shall be no order as to cost.
As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE G. NARENDAR _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt: 26.11.2024 RD 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.27391 of 2024 Date: 26.11.2024 RD