AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COUNSEL for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. The petitioner/applicant Sri Prakash Sing is an intervener. He is neither the consumer nor the service provider. The consumer filed a complaint against the builder. He prayed that the builder be directed to get registered his flat and the parking space No. 2. He also claimed compensation from the builder. The District Forum decided the case in favour of the complainant.
BOTH the Opposite parties and the complainant filed cross appeals before the State Commission. During the pendency of these appeals, Sri Prakash Singh, who claimed title in respect of the said flat, filed an application, which was dismissed.
WE have heard the counsel for the petitioner/intervener. He submits that there is a report of the pleader Commissioner. The Pleader Commissioner in his report at Para Nos. 5, 6 and 7 made the following observation: - "5. In the above said car parking space no.2 a big steel box (trunk made of galvanized sheets) and two motorcycles bearing numbers WB 26 F 9977 and BR 1A 1152 were kept, which had been told to be of the newly allotted occupant of flat no. -201 namely Sri Prakash Singh (Sub -Inspector of Police). Smt. Sudha Singh, wife of the said new occupant accepted that the said properties were her as the said space had been allotted to her by the builder.
Smt. Anita Mishra, secretary of the Quality Paradise Flat Owners Association, affirmed the same and informed that on her request the complainants were keeping their vehicle in the car parking space no. -14.
The Car Parking Space No. -14 was in the right side of the apartment along the west boundary wall/set back and drive way".
The order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. This is a question of title. The dispute is interse between the parties. The case of the petitioner is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. He can file a Civil case and if so advised, can pray for temporary or permanent injunction. If a cloud is caste over his title he can seek redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum/Civil Court. This Commission cannot arrogate to itself the powers enjoyed by the Civil Court. It is also pertinent to mention that the applicant/petitioner is not a necessary party in the present controversy.
NO ground. Dismissed.