PRATAPA RAM KIRAN Vs. KOTAKKI LAKSHMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant represented by his father and GPA holder, Mr. P.R.K. Prasad filed the complaint under Sec. 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties seeking directions as follows:

(2.) The complainant submitted that though opposite parties have issued the said letter, they have neither completed the construction of the said flat nor delivered the flat to the complainant though they have received the entire sale consideration. The complainant made several requests and demands to opposite parties to complete the flat and handover possession but opposite parties 1 to 3 put opposite party No. 4 in possession of the said unfinished flat which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant got issued a registered notice dated 8.11.2012 to the opposite parties for which there was no reply. Hence the complaint.

(3.) The opposite party No. 1 filed written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and submitted that she was the owner of the house bearing No. 4 -43 -17, Assessment No. 33983 of 624 sq. yds. (MIG Plot No. 14) in China Waltair of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and gave General Power of Attorney for 312 sq. yds. vide Doc. No. 2809/2007 dated 26.6.2007 to opposite parties 2 and 3 and subsequently entered into a Development agreement on 20.8.2007 according to which, the flat of the complainant fell to the share of opposite parties 2 and 3. Opposite party No. 1 contended that she is no way related for the alleged transaction between the complainant and opposite parties 2 and 3 as she has not received any sale consideration or gave any undertaking to the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 submitted that she too repeatedly requested opposite parties 2 and 3 to complete the entire portion including common works of the apartment and that she came to know that opposite parties 2 and 3 have registered some flats of their share to multiple buyers and therefore she filed a suit for specific performance of agreement and also an Ad -interim Injunction restraining opposite parties from inducting other dependents into her suit schedule property before the IV Addl. District Judge in O.S. No. 263/2010 and the Court gave status quo against all the dependants including the complainant and 4th opposite party.