State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Shaligram Corporation vs Vasantbhai Chandubhai Bhaisha on 18 February, 2022
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 18 02 2022
Date of filling 11 03 2015
Duration 07 11 06
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD,
Court-2.
APPEAL NO. 590 of 2015
1. Shaligram Corporation (Partnership firm)
2. Vipinchandra Fulabhai Patel
Both 1 and 2 at: 10/543,
Opp. Bank of Baroda,
Khapatiya Chakla, Surat.
3. Shashikant Shantilal Vakharia
55, Sant Tukaram Society,
Near Nehar,
Bhatar Road, Surat.
4. Shardaben Kantilal Patel
543, Opp Bank of Baroda,
Khapatiya Chakla, Surat.
5. Jitendra Thakoredas Chowala.
6. Hasmukh Thakoredas Chowala
7. Rameshchandra Thakoredas Chowala
8. Ravindra Thakoredas Chowala
9. Ajay Jitendrabhai Chowala
10. Kalpesh Hasmukh Chowala
11. Chandresh Rameshbhai Chowala
12. Jayesh Jitendrabhai Chowala
13. Dansih Ravindrabhai Chowala
14. Dipak Manilal Chowala
15. Naresh Jintendrabhai Chowala
16. Nilesh Rameshbhai Chowala
17. Prakash Hasmukhabhai Chowala
B.H.Gadhavi A-15-590 Page 1 of 8
18. Bharat Rameshbhai Chowala
19. Rajesh Rameshbahi Chowala
20. Siddharth Ravindrabhai Chowala.
21. Amarapali widow of Hitesh Jitendra Chowala
22. AmarapaliGurdian of Minor Vaibhavi d/o Hitesh
Chowala.
23. Amarapali Guardian of Minor Rinkal d/o Hitesh
Chowala.
All 5 to 23, at: 3/2393/6-A,
Salabatpura, BardoliPitha,
Chhoni Bhatti, Surat.
...Appellants
(Ori. Opponents.)
Vs.
Ashwinbhai Kanchanlal Jariwala
3,1881, Sheri no.2,
Dhamlawad,
Salabatpura, Surat ...Respondent.
(Ori. Complainant)
Appearance: Ld. Advocate Ms. Y. T. Mehta
For the appellants
Ld. Advocate Mr. D.U. Thakkar on
behalf of Ld. Advocate Mr. Shreyas
Desai for the Respondent
Coram : Shri M.J.Mehta Judicial Member
Order by Shri M.J.Mehta, Judicial Member
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat in Consumer Complaint No. 233 of 2008.
2. The appellants have preferred instant appeal on the grounds that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in law the parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature for the sake of convenience.
B.H.Gadhavi A-15-590 Page 2 of 83. Today this matter has taken on board as per the circular for celebration of Independence of 75 years i.e. "Aazadi Ka Amrut Mahotsav", it was instructed to dispose the old Consumer Cases.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:
Complainant has purchased the flat No. C-101 constructed over the land at Surat Salabatpura Bardoli Pitha Area ward No.3, Registration No. 2393 paiki Sub Plot No. 6 Thakor Dwar Apartment Phase No. 2 and the peaceful possession was handed over to the complainant, but the agreement of the sale deed are not executed, therefore the complainant came before the Consumer Forum with a prayer to Execute the sale deed in favor of the complainant and kept it register, with sub registrar office Surat.
5. Ori. Opponents appeared and also filed their reply and submitted that the city survey ward No.3, Registration No.2393 paiki Sub-Plot No.6 land is of their ownership and the other development work, construction work and sell of the constructed property of that land is handed over to the Ori. Opp. No. 1 Shaligram Corporation (Partnership Firm) and the said issue is not disputed, further Ori. Opp. Nos. 6, 8 to 10 (here Appellant Nos. 5 to 8) have no personal knowledge about the transaction between Shaligram Corporation and Ori. Complainant, thereby this complaint is not tenable against Ori. Opp. Nos. 6, 8 to 10.
B.H.Gadhavi A-15-590 Page 3 of 86. Further it is submitted that complainant has joined other partners, whose name are on record on city survey for that on 23.10.2013 application was given and the applications were allowed and thereafter Ori. Opp. Nos. 11 to 25 (here Appellant Nos. 9 to 23) had joined as a party in the matter, Ori. Opp. Nos. 11 to 16 (here Appellant Nos. 9 to
14) has filed their replies accordingly as per the contention raised by the Ori. Opp. Nos. 6, 8 to 10 as they are the legal heirs of Ori. Opp. Nos. 6, 8 to 10 and legal heirs were not bound by any contract which was not bound by original party.
7. Ld. Trial Forum has heard both the sides, for Ori. Opp. Nos. 11 to 25 independently no any submissions were made and they have accepted the contention raised by the Ori. Opp. Nos. 6,8 to 10.
8. Complainant with the complaint have produced contract dated 16.02.2008 the Ori. Opp. No. 2,3,5 and 6 (here appellant Nos.2 to 5) are as a partner of Shaligram Corporation are produced on record. Wherein disclosed that a physical possession of the property in question was handed over to the complainant and complainant has obtained possession and paid consideration amount to the other side with consideration that registration execution should be carried out by the complainant by its own expenses and all expenses should be paid by the complainant.
9. Further it is considered that Ori. Opp. Nos. 6, 8 to 10 the owner of land and Shaligram B.H.Gadhavi A-15-590 Page 4 of 8 Corporation has to developed and made construction over the land and whichever the flats are ready Ori. Opp. no. 6,8 to 10 have to execute registration in favor of the complainant, and ultimately in the year 1991 possession of questioned flat was given and thereby only the sale deed should be executed, therefore the complaint was filed.
10. Therefore, further it is the fact that Ori. Opp. nos. 6,8 to 10 has given their reply and in para 7 wherein it is dispute between the Shaligram Corporation (Partnership firm) and only because of that reason Ori. Opp. shall not deny the execution of the sale deed as there is deficiency in service.
11. Ld. Trial Forum has observed that as per the agreement between the land owner and Shaligram Corporation, Land price of Rs. 1,751/- per sq/mts., are entitled by the land owner and profit amounts should be treated as construction expense by Shaligram Corporation.
12. Therefore, land owner has to executed a sale deed of the questioned flat to the complainant so two different registrations is to be carried out one is for construction and second for agreement for land. As the Ori. Opp. Nos. 11 to 25 are legal heirs of Ori. Opp. Nos. 6,8 to 10 and therefore Ori. Opp. No. 1 Shaligram Corporation has to execute the sale deed of the flats.
B.H.Gadhavi A-15-590 Page 5 of 813. By aggrieving with this order Ld. Ad. For the appellant Ms. Mehta has Submitted before me that the order passed by the Ld. Trial Forum is against the provision of Consumer Protection Act, and rules therefore order passed by the Ld. Trial Forum is required to be quashed and set aside.
14. Further it is submitted before me that complainant has filed present complaint before the Consumer Forum was time barred and it should not be maintained even than the forum insisted rejecting it only on this ground allowed complaint without satisfying or justifying the delay caused in filing of complaint the Ld. Trial forum has relied upon the agreement of 1986 all the possession were given in the year 1988 and thereby complainant has filed the complaint almost 20 years later and in 20 years delay was allowed without justification so order is required to be quashed and set aside.
15. Ld. Ad. for the appellant Ms. Mehta has submitted before me that Ld. Trial Forum has fails to give findings for order allowing the complaint the Ld. Trial Forum has passed an order beyond the prayer of the complainant, thereby it is not tenable in eye of law.
16. Further Ld. Ad. Ms. Mehta on behalf of the appellant has submitted that complaint filed by the complainant was not consumer complaint. Thus the suit is required to be filed for specific performance before the civil court. Therefore, B.H.Gadhavi A-15-590 Page 6 of 8 Consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
17. Therefore, without consideration all the facts of the case straight way complaint were allowed and is not tenable in eye of law, and further submitted before me that Ld. Trial forum judgment is required to be quashed and set aside and appeal must be allowed.
18. On other hand Ld. Ad. Mr. D.U. Thakkar on behalf of Mr. Shreyas Desai for the respondent has submitted before me that Hon'ble Trial Forum has rightly passed the order in accordance with law and is not required to be interfere with.
19. Ld. Ad. Mr. D.U. Thakkar on behalf of Mr. Shreyas Desai for the respondent has submitted that as per the agreement are on record the physical possession was handed over to the complainant that's why now the issue remains present is that Ori. Opponents. have not executed the sale deed even after it was reminded to execute sale deed agreement.
20. Considering both the side argument on behalf of both the parties I am of the opinion that Ld. Trial Forum has rightly viewed that agreement in question are executed between the parties after obtaining consideration over the flat and so it is the duty Ori. Opps. to carryout execution of sale deed of flat construction and Ori. Opp. Nos. 11 to 25 is legal heirs of Ori. Opp. Nos.6,8 to 10 have B.H.Gadhavi A-15-590 Page 7 of 8 to legally bound in duty to execute sale deed in favor of complaint as prayed for.
21. Considering all this circumstances, I gone through the judgment of the Ld. Trial Forum, record of the case and the submission on behalf of both the parties I do not find any substance in appeal as submitted before me and argued before me so order and judgement of the Ld. Trial Forum is required to be confirmed, and there is no any ground to interfere with hence appeal is dismissed.
FINAL ORDER
i) Appeal No. 590 of 2015 is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat in Consumer Complaint No. 233 of 2008 is Confirmed.
iii) No order as to cost in this appeal.
iv) Registry is directed to send certified copy of this judgment to the parties. Registry is directed to send a copy this judgment to the CDRF Surat through E-mail in PDF format for taking necessary action.
Pronounced in the open court on 18th February 2022.
(M.J.Mehta) Judicial Member B.H.Gadhavi A-15-590 Page 8 of 8