Date of Filing: 12/10/2011
Date of Order: 16/12/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 16th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1870 OF 2011
Sri.Sanjeev B. Mogal,
Aged About 65 years,
Flat No.C1/2, Dnyaneswar Nagar,
Co-op. Housing Society Limited,
SEWREE, WADALA,
Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road,
MUMBAI-400 031.
(Rep. by In-person) …. Complainant.
V/s
Mr.Bhavadeep (Bobby) Reddy,
The Managing Director,
Access Developers (P) Ltd.,
Presently Operating from
No.84, 1st Floor, (O/O. Indus
Homes, 3rd Floor), R.V. Road,
South end, Bangalore-04.
(Rep. by Sri.B.T., Advocate) …. Opposite Party.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.12,00,000/-, are necessary:-
The complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/- and purchased plot No.155, measuring 2400 square feet in the year 2002-2003 and the sale deed was registered in the name of the complainant by the vendor “Access Developers”. The complainant went to Muscat and returned to Bangalore in the year 2009. When he went to pay the municipal taxes he found that his site has been re-sold to one Murthy in the year 2006 by the vendors. The complainant reserves his right to initiate proceedings against the concerned fraud and cheating. The opposite party is involved in many fraud cases as has been informed by the reliable source and is willing to file a fraud case with appropriate court at Mumbai. Hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the opposite party are:-
The complaint is barred by time. The executants of the sale deeds are not parties to the proceedings. The friend of the complainant Mr.Kishore Kaikini who is residing in Bangalore cannot represent the complainant. The payment of Rs.2,50,000/- is denied. The dispute does not come under the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party has not executed any sale deed in favour of anybody.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the complainant has filed his affidavit. The opposite party did not turn up at all after filing the version. Hence the argument of the complainant is heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service?
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) & (B): As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
6. The complaint is reproduced herein:-
The complaint does not carry any meaning. It is un-understandable.
7. In any event it is seen from the records that M/s. Access Developers Private Limited represented by Sri.K.Viswanatha Reddy and Sri.N.Chandra Shekar Reddy had executed a sale deed with respect to the site No.155, Katha No.397, Simhapuri Township measuring 60x40 feet at Bukkasagara Village, Jigini Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, bounded East by Road, West by Site No.158, North By site No.154, South by Site No.156 have sold it to the complainant and purchased by the complainant for Rs.71,400/- only on 26.07.2001 and he was put in possession of the said property on that day. That means as from 26.07.2001 the complainant is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is for him to safe-guard the interest of his title and possession with respect to the said property.
8. The main contention of the complainant is that he was at Muscat and when he returned to Bangalore in 2009 he came to know that the said site has been sold by the his vendors to one H.T.N.Murthy who is no more on 15.10.2006 for Rs.2,52,000/-. This cannot be termed as deficiency in service. If the vendors of the property has sold the property to the complainant and the complainant has become the owner from 2002, the earlier vendors cannot resale the property to anybody. That will not amount to deficiency in service. That may amounts to fraud or misrepresentation or any other thing under the I.P.C. but it will not come within the ambit and scope of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
9. Even otherwise the opposite party is not the vendor of this property either to the complainant or to H.T.N.Murthy as the case may be. When the opposite party is not the executants of the sale deeds either in favour of the complainant or in favour of the H.T.N.Murthy how can the complainant lay claim against the opposite party in this complaint? There is no answer. M/s. Access Developers Private Limited is not a party to the proceedings. The opposite party is not the director of the said M/s. Access Developers Private Limited nor he has executed the sale deed on behalf of the M/s. Access Private Limited either to the complainant or in favour of the H.T.N.Murthy. When that is the case how can the opposite party be held liable for this complaint in this case? there is no answer.
10. The other contention of the opposite party is that Mr.Kishore Kaikini cannot represent the complainant. It is an untenable contention. Mr. Kishore Kaikini is the special power of attorney holder of the complainant as seen from the special power of attorney executed in this case in favour of the Kishore Kaikini.
11. Hence under these circumstances there is no relationship of consumer and the trader exists between the parties. The entire allegations as per the records may amounts to double sale by the vendors of the same property. That will not come within the ambit and scope of the consumer dispute. There is no deficiency in service. The remedy to the complainant is to approach the Civil Court seeking injunction stating that once the sale deed has been executed in his favour no other person can purchase the same property from the earlier vendor and even if the said sale deed is there it is nullity since the earlier vendor had not title to convey. When the sale deed has been executed by the vendors in favour of Murthy in the year 2006, even if it comes under Consumer Protection Act for arguments, sake even then the complainant should have filed the complaint within the year 2008, but filing complaint in the year 2011 is hopelessly barred by time. This has been considered only on hypothesis and this Forum clearly holds that this will not come under the Consumer Dispute. Hence we hold the above points accordingly, and proceed to pass the following:-
-: ORDER:-
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 31st Day of December 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
