VICRAANT ABHISHEK KELA Vs. SELENE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the Opposite party submits that the present Complaint is not maintainable since another class Consumer Complaint No.1422 of 2017 in respect of the same project, covering the entire project including the tower B is already pending and the application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has already been allowed vide order dated 20.09.2017 in the said class suit. It is submitted that the present Complaint be dismissed and liberty be given to the Complainants to become a party in the said Consumer Complaint.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Complainants submits that the prayers are differed in both the Complaints. It is submitted that the Complainants in Consumer Complaint No.1422 of 2017 have only asked for compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs while the present Complainants are asking for compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs and have also raised the issue of shifting their tower B from the original place and therefore, it cannot be said that identical reliefs have been claimed by the Complainants. It is submitted that the nature of deficiency in service is not the same.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of Opposite Party that there is no prayer that since the tower B has been shifted from the original place, so the Complainants do not want possession of the flat in the changed place and want refund of their deposited money. It is submitted that the prayer is for possession and for compensation. It is further submitted that the Complainants herein have intentionally claimed Rs.50 Lakhs as compensation but the fact remains that the compensation for delay has been claimed in both the Complaints by the Complainants.