COMPLAINT FILED: 25-03-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 31-10-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 31ST OCTOBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :-SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.696/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Venkatesh Prasad<br /> s/o.G.Govindaswamy Major,<br /> No.430, 11th B Cross,<br /> 29th Main, 1st Phase J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-78.<br /> <br /> Advocate – <br /> Sri.G.R.Vittal Murthy<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Ashwini Kumar Shetty<br /> S/o.Ramesh Shetty major,<br /> Residing at No.13, Lakshmiah Block, CBI Road,<br /> GangaNagar<br /> Bangalore – 560 024.<br /> <br /> Advocate – <br /> Sri.Shakeel Ahmed <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant through his Advocate filed this complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-<br /> <br /> 2. The complainant is employed in HP software company at Bangalore and he was a lessee under the OP in schedule property bearing flat N0.209, 2nd floor, Indus Innova Mahadevadvra, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore. OP is the lessor of the schedule property. OP along with his advocate issued a several irrelevant and illegal notices to the complainant and threatened to vacate the schedule premises without due process of law, during the currency of lease period of 3 years and threatened to accept a lessor amount than the lease amount of Rs.6,50,000/- for no fault of complainant. The OP with his advocate arranged the meeting with Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ulsoor Police station, Bangalore. On 31-12-2008 and issued a account payee cheque bearing No.30259-56022900. OP has not fulfilled the condition of lease agreement for the period of 3 years from 10-07-2008 and harassed the complainant to vacate the schedule premises and threatened to vacate the premises without following the due process of law and compelled to accept an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- in place of Rs.6,50,000/-. Therefore there is a breach of contract on the part of the OP. The legal notice was issued to the OP to pay the bounced cheque of amount of Rs.12,500/-. Thus the complainant claimed the relief stated above. <br /> <br /> 3. OP on appearance filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable; the owner who let out the premises on lease basis will not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The relation between the lessor and lessee will not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. OP is not a land owner and he is only an Apartment Owner having undivided share which is purchased from a builder. There were no irrelevant or illegal notices nor threatened to the complainant to vacate the schedule premises at any point of time. The complainant who was lessee under the OP entered into an agreement of lease and as per Clause – 11 the notice was issued to vacate the premises since both the complainant and the OP as agreed upon. <br /> <br /> 4. It was contended that the meeting was held in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ulsoor Police station, Bangalore as a complaint was lodged against the complainant for the illegal acts committed prior to vacating premises in question. It is also contended that the matter was settled between the complainant and the OP and a cheque was issued after full and final settlement between the parties. The notices were issued to vacate the premises as the complainant not fulfilled the terms of agreement of lease dated 10-07-2007. He was not compelled to accept the amount of Rs.6,25,000/-. There is no cause of action, and there is no deficiency of service, the complainant not entitled to get any relief. “It is stated that the complainant and OP has entered into agreement of lease on 10-07-2007 in support of schedule premises and an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid by the complainant to the OP towards lease amount of the premises for a period of 3 years. As per Clause – 8 of the agreement while vacating the premises the lessee should pay Rs.20,000/- towards painting charges. As per Clause – 9 the lessee shall pay the amount towards monthly maintenance costs of the Apartment.”<br /> <br /> 5. The complainant failed to pay monthly maintenance charges to the Association of the Apartment and he has damaged the kitchen cabinet, wardrobe and bath room, therefore notice was issued to terminate the lease agreement and requesting the complainant to vacate schedule premises. The complainant has not replied for the said notice, another notice was issued on 17-03-2008 for that also the complainant has not replied. On 03-10-2008 complainant issued the notice as per his desire and his convenience to vacate premises by 1st of November 2008 and requested to refund Rs.6,50,000/- along with compensation. OP sent the reply stating that he is prepared to refund the amount after proper deduction of charges towards painting and other damages of Rs.5,000/-. On 13-12-2008 the complainant called the OP to visit his premises as he has prepared to vacate the premises, when the OP went with D.D. the complainant informed that he would receive the D.D. and vacate the premises after a week for which OP did not agree for that complainant abused and threatened OP and tried to assault him; for the same a complaint was lodged before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ulsoor Police station, Bangalore. On 31-12-2008 the matter was settled amicably and complainant has entered into cancellation of agreement. The complainant has encashed the cheque and D.D. and he was satisfied with all the sum paid by the OP towards the refund of the lease amount. After all these development without any valid reason the present complaint has been filed. OP is not liable to pay any compensation. Thus it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. <br /> <br /> 6. The advocate for the OP filed affidavit to substantiate complaint allegations and later the complainant also filed affidavit and written arguments. OP filed affidavit in support of the version and produced documents. <br /> <br /> 7.After perusing the pleadings, the affidavit evidence and documents produced and hearing both the sides the following point that arise for our consideration are:-<br /> <br /> Point :- Whether the complaint is maintainable and <br /> the dispute arises can be adjudicated by<br /> this Forum under C.P. Act of 1986 ?<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. We record our findings to the above Point Negative for the reasons mentioned below:<br /> <br /> R E A S O N <br /> <br /> 9. As per the complaint averments it is clear that the complainant was a lessee and OP was lessor and schedule premises were taken on lease by the complainant on entering into lease agreement dated 10-07-2007. The Xerox copy of the lease agreement produced by the OP clearly goes to show that the amount of Rs.6,50,000/-was received by the OP as lease amount from the complainant and lease period was for 3 years. Since the complainant has not compelled with the terms and conditions of the lease agreement regarding the payment of maintenance charges and he also caused damages to kitchen cabinet, wardrobe and bath room and when the complainant threatened to assault OP, OP lodged complaint before the police. The matter was settled between the parties before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ulsoor Police Station, Bangalore and settlement deed has been executed by both the parties. The notices said to have been issued by the OP to the complainant are regarding the complainant not complying with the terms of lease agreement. As per the lease agreement at the time of the vacating premises complainant has agreed to deduct Rs.20,000/- out of lease amount towards painting charges. As there was damage to the kitchen cabinet and other parts of the premises additional amount of Rs.5,000/- was deducted. The complainant has received the balance lease amount of Rs.6,25,000/- in full and final settlement and delivered vacant possession of the premises to the OP. After all these things again he has come up with this complaint through his advocate claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the ground that OP has threatened him to vacate the premises by issuing notices and compelled him to accept the amount of Rs.6,25,000/- in place of Rs.6,50,000/-. In our view when the matter was settled amicably between the parties in presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Police and both the parties have executed the document of settlement dated 31-12-2008, the Xerox copy of the said document produced by the OP, clearly goes to show that both the parties have agreed that they have no claim against each other as entire dispute and differences have been settled amicably. <br /> <br /> <br /> 10. The complainant was admittedly a lessee of the schedule premises and the OP was the lessor, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider to attract the provision of C.P. Act. The complainant is not a Consumer and there is no any material to hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The paper cutting of “Communique” carries the news that regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling where in the land owners who enter into agreement with builders can approach the consumer forum for breach of conditions as the builders are deemed to be “service providers” under the Consumer Protection Act. The said ruling no way helpful to the complainant, the complainant is not a land owner and he has not entered in to agreement with any builders to hold that the dispute between the complainant and the OP is of a consumer dispute. Without any basis the complainant has filed this frivolous complaint. It is nothing but abusing and misuse of process; such complaints are to be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.3,000/-.<br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of October 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />