GUNVATIBEN KANTILAL SHAH Vs. SHUBHAM BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions, 23 in number, have been filed against the impugned order dated 4.11.2015, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 293/2014 and allied matters, vide which, while dismissing the appeals, the order passed by the District Forum, Valsad, dismissing the consumer complaints filed by the present petitioners, were upheld.

(2.) In the consumer complaints filed by the petitioners against the OP builder, it was alleged that although the total sale consideration for the property in question had been paid to the builder and in turn, the possession was also delivered a long time back already, the OPs had failed to execute the registered sale-deeds in favour of the complainants. The OP-1, Shubham Builders is a partnership firm and OP-2 Sureshbhai M. Desai, is one of their partners. OP-3 & 4 are real brothers and co-owners of the land, upon which the construction/development was made by OP-1 & The title of the property is not being transferred in the name of the complainants on account of the fact that there was some dispute between the OPs 3 and 4, and hence, the sale deeds could not be executed. The complainant stated that OPs1 & 2 and also OP-4 had admitted their legal obligations qua the complainants in their letter dated 10.01.2012, whereby they mentioned that they had some internal dispute with OP-3, resulting in delay in the execution and the registration of the sale-deeds. The complainants sought directions to the OPs to execute the registered sale-deeds of the property in question and also to pay compensation to them for their alleged lapse.

(3.) Before the District Forum, reply was filed by OP-1 & 2 builders and OP-4 jointly in which they stated that they had always shown readiness to get the sale-deeds executed, but the same could not be done due to dispute with OP- OP-1 & 4 stated that they had received the full price of the disputed property and they were bound by law to execute the sale-deeds but it was necessary to have the presence and signatures of OP-3 for doing the same. OP-1, 2 & 4 stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part and hence, the complaints against them should be dismissed.