C.K.SHAH vs PRAVINCHANDRA SHANKERLAL SHAH

THE complainants have booked flats from the opposite party who are alleged to be the organisers of the scheme viz. ''Suraj Apartments'' Nr. Sunrise Park, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. THE opponents have allotted the respective flats to them as stated in para 2 of the complaint. THEre is no dispute to that. It is alleged that there is some space on the ground floor surrounding the apartments for parking, common compound, water tube well etc. According to the complainants the ownership rights were given to the land owners collectively and sale deed had been executed and possession letters have been given to respective owners. In this case the organisers have completed the whole scheme, handed over the possession and have executed the sale deed and there is no dispute with regard to the construction of the respective flats. THErefore, according to our opinion the scheme having been fully executed, the relationship of consumer and provider of services have come to an end. If any subsequent dispute arises either with the apartment owners inter-se or in respect of the interpretation of the sale deed or any illegal activity alleged to have been done by anybody including the organiser, the remedy available to the complainants would be the Civil Court or any other Forum but not the consumer forums. In the instant case we find that everything has been completed and an allegation has been made in para 3 of the complaint that the opponents were selling some margin space to one Mr. R.P. Verma to which we are not concerned. In this complaint these are alleged to be subsequent acts after the execution of the sale deed and completion of the scheme. It appears that some ''otla'' has alleged to have been constructed. Whether the construction is legal or illegal is not to be determined by us.

AGAIN, we find that the complainants have valued the complaint for more than Rs. 1 lakhs without making any claim for compensation but have asked for the reliefs which this Commission cannot grant under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The valuation to our opinion is also excessive and has been made only to bring the matter before us. The opponents have filed a written statement. He has produced an alleged compromise which is dated 16.8.92 wherein the opponents have also admitted that the surrounding space is a common space. However, Mr. Patel, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the complainants says that he has no instruction though the signature of the compromise appears to be of his client. In these circumstances, we have not taken the compromise on record since Mr. Patel is not agreeing to the compromise. The compromise will remain on the file as unapproved.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the application and do not decide the same on merits as stated above. The complainants can pursue their remedy through any other Forum they desire. The request for adjournment of Mr. Patel has not been granted. ORDER The complaint is therefore rejected. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Complaint rejected.