P R MENON Vs. P A CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 3rd March, 1993 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras in O.P. No. 39/93. By the impugned order the State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the present appellant Shri P.R. Menon against the respondent-M/s. P.A. Construction. In this order the parties will be referred as arrayed in the complaint. In the complaint the complainant had alleged that he had purchased a flat No. B-23 at 869, Poonamallee High Ropad, Madras constructed by the opposite party by agreement dated 19.12.86. The complainant had purchased the said flat with the specific understanding that he would be allotted car parking space in the ground floor of the said building. Car parking space was very essential for him since his line of work involved lot of commuting from place to place. The opposite party vide letter dated 4th December, 1991 agreed to provide car parking space at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. The complainant agreed to buy the same and sent his Regional Manager on 20-12-91 to meet the opposite party. However, the opposite party did not give the letter of allotment regarding car parking space and on the other hand sent a letter stating that garage space could be allotted only at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. The complainant sent a notice through a Lawyer to the opposite party demanding car parking space at the initial agreed rate. The opposite party sent a reply refusing to provide car parking space at the contracted rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. Thereupon the complainant filed a complaint for directing the opposite party to provide the car parking space and garage at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. and for compensation in the sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs.

(2.) At the admission stage of the complaint the State Commission held that it is a case regarding an agreement for sale of immovable property coming under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by section 55 of the said Act and hence the remedy of the complainant was to file a suit for specific performance in a Court of competent jurisdiction and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no application in respect of the sale of immovable property.

(3.) As noticed above the State Commission dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against that the complainant has filed this appeal before this Commission.