J.JAYARAM, J. - (1.) The complainant has filed a complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and praying for an order to allot alternative plot in lieu of plot No.13, of the same extent on that same price within the city in Chennai, and to pay Rs.11,40,000/- as loss of rental income, Rs.11,00,000/- for escalation of cost of construction, Rs.8,00,000/- for litigation expenses, Rs.3,00,000/- towards stamp duty and registration charges, Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.60,000/- towards traveling expenses, Rs.25,000/- as consultation fees for architect and Rs.25,000/- towards costs.
(2.) The case of the complainant is as follows :- The complainant?s deceased husband made an application to the 2nd opposite party for the allotment of plot under Besent Nagar Division of Tamilnadu Housing Board and the 2nd opposite party allotted plot No.13 in Besant Nagar Division in Phase I and the total extent of the plot is 2290 sq. ft. and one K.Sundaresan filed a writ before this Hon?ble High Court challenging the allotment on the ground that plot No.13 allotted to the complainant?s husband is a public road. An advocate Commissioner was appointed who submitted a report stating that the disputed area is used as path way by the entire public. The writ petition was finally disposed on 6.10.1998 directing the writ petitioner to institute appropriate suit to establish his claim before the Civil Court, against which the writ petitioner filed writ appeal which was disposed of on 13.12.04 confirming the order of the learned single judge and in the said order the Division Bench of the Hon?ble High Court clarified that the order will not stand in the way of allottee to seek allotment of alternative site. The Revision petitioner challenged the order in the writ appeal before the Hon?ble Supreme Court which was dismissed by the order of the Supreme on 25.2.05 and after the demise of her husband the plot was transferred to her name. In the mean time the 2nd opposite party executed the sale deed on 2.4.2004 and the said sale deed was registered as a document NO.2350 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Adayar, South Chennai. When she applied for Patta on 20.06.2008, the Tahsildar, Mylapore - Triplicane informed her that the land was classified as Road and the opposite parties did not hand over possession of the said land to the complainant even after receipt of the entire sale consideration. The allotment of Plot No.13 which was classified in revenue records as road, to the complainant by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to allotment of alternative plot as per the direction of the Division Bench and hence the complaint praying for direction to allot alternative plot and for award of compensation under various heads and for costs.
(3.) The 2nd opposite party filed the version adopted by the 1st opposite party admitting the allotment of the Plot No.13 mentioned in the complaint to the deceased husband of the complainant and after his death the allotment was transferred in favour of his wife who is the complainant herein and the adjacent owner one K.Sundaresan filed a writ before the Hon?ble High Court and finally the Hon?ble High Court passed an order stating that the allottee can seek alternative site and that there is no alternative site available in the particular scheme and that once the sale deed was executed by the opposite parties, the service provider ?consumer relationship ceased to exist and that the complainant is not entitled to any relief in the complaint.;