- (1.) THIS order will govern disposal of appeal Nos.406/2011, 407/2011 and 408/2011, which have been preferred by the same OP Nos.1 & 2 / appellants, against different complainants / respondent No.1 and the same OP No.2 / respondent No.2 of complaint case Nos.38/2007, 39/2007 and 40/2007 respectively, which have been decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called District Forum for short), vide similar order dated 20.06.2011.
(2.) MRS . Preeti Dawda was complainant of complaint case Nos.40/2007 and 38/2007, whereas one Mr. Rajesh Sanghani was complainant of complaint case No.39/07. The case of complainants of all the complaint cases before District Forum was that plot No.867/2 is situated at Baijnath Para, Raipur and an agreement was executed between the appellants as well as respondent No.2 on 15.06.1991 for construction and development that particular plot and then construction of apartment house was carried out on that plot and agreements were executed for sell of flats and shops of that apartment house with the complainants of these complaint cases. As per the two complaint cases of Mrs. Preeti Dawda, she entered into an agreement for sell of shop No.1 and 15 of the ground floor of the apartment house, whereas case of Rajesh Sanghani was that he entered into agreement for sell of flat No.(A) of that apartment house and the said flat was sold by agreement of sell and letter of delivery of possession dated 07.03.1994. He is in possession of that property, but thereafter registered sale -deed was not executed by the appellants / OP Nos.1 and 2, which amounts deficiency in service and so he filed consumer complaint. Similarly, Mrs. Preeti Dawda in her complaint cases stated that she purchased two shops by agreement of sale dated 06.05.1995 and 09.09.1995 and the document of agreement of sell cum delivery of possession were executed and the possession was transferred to her and from those dates she is in possession, but thereafter registered sale -deed was not executed in her favour, which amounts deficiency in service and so she also filed the complaint cases. Thus in short, case of the complainants was that the appellants, were the owner of the plot and respondent No.2, was the Builder, but they in spite of execution of agreement of sell and letter of delivery of possession, have failed to execute registered sale -deed in their favour and so claiming relief of direction to the appellants to execute sale -deed, consumer complaints were filed.
(3.) THE case of the appellants before District Forum in all the three cases was that the complainants were not consumers of the appellants herein. This preliminary objection was raised that when notice dated 13.01.2007 was issued to the complainant then on the basis of that notice, Civil Suit No.19A/2007 was filed by the appellants / OP Nos.1 and 2 against respondent No.2 as well as the complainants and all other persons who claimed purchase of flat or shop in the property, before a competent Civil Court, which is still pending and during pendency of that Civil Suit, the consumer complaint does not lie. It has also been pleaded that the agreement of sell cum letter of delivery of possession, which have been filed by the complainants in the consumer complaint, are forged, fabricated and false documents and on the basis of such forged, false and fabricated documents consumer complaints are not maintainable. It has been denied that any such agreement was ever executed in favour of the complainants or ever signed by the appellants. It has also been stated that the agreement dated 14.06.1991, which was executed in favour of respondent No.2 Builder has already been cancelled on 13.01.07, regarding which Civil Suit is pending before a competent Civil Court. Thus, the allegations of execution of any agreement of sale and that of committing deficiency in service have been totally denied. Op No.3 / respondent No.2 Builder in its separate written version averred that whole of the consideration of sold property has already been received by Ops and the Builder respondent No.2 never denied its liability of execution of sale -deed, but the appellants / Op Nos.1 and 2 were deliberately avoiding execution of such sale -deed. So, it has been averred that as no deficiency in service has been committed by the Builder, so the complaint is not maintainable against it.;