BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 518/2017
1. | Mr. B. Karthik, S/o Sri K.H. Bellaiah, Aged about 26 years, R/at CISF unit isite (ISRO) Quarters, Marathahalli, Doddannekundi, Bangalore 560 037. | …… Complainant/s |
2. | Mr. K.H. Bellaiah, S/o H.P. Hiriyannaya Gowda, Aged about 51 years, R/at No.CISF unit isite (ISRO) Quarters, Marathahalli, Doddannekundi, Bangalore 560 037. (By Smt. Sucheta Majumdar Burman) | |
V/s
Mr. D. Manjunath, Real Estate Agent, S/o Sri V. Dasappa, Having its address at No.47, 8th Main, Vinayaka Layout, Doddanekkundi Layout, Near Chinnapanna Halli, Bengaluru 560 037. (By Sri P. Shivakumar) | ... Opposite Party/ies |
ORDER
Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainants against the Opposite Party alleging in not returning the amount of Rs.20 lakhs paid towards purchase of the site. Hence, prayed to refund the amount along with interest at 24% p.a. and Rs.10 lakhs as exemplary costs.
2. The averments in the complaint are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he intended to purchase immovable property bearing site No.40, Khata No.550/1, BBMP Form B Khata No.1221, situated at Railway Station to Bus Stand Road, Doddanekkundi, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring East to west 15 ft, North to South 40 ft in all measuring 600 sq.ft. with 6 squares of RCC roofed duplex house and agreed for a consideration of Rs.46,50,000/-. The above site was purchased by the Opposite Party from one Sri S. Jayaraj, S/o Late Selvaraj vide document No.MDP-1-07573/2016-2017. After arrived to the said consideration amount, the complainant had paid Rs.20 lakhs to the Opposite Party by way of 3 cheques vide cheque bearing No.750362 dt.22.06.2017 for Rs.6 lakhs, cheque No.818021 dt.22.06.2017 for Rs.10 lakhs and another cheque No.818022 dt.22.06.2017 for Rs.4 lakhs and entered into an agreement for sale and the complainant agreed to pay the entire sale consideration amount at the time of execution of the sale deed. After execution of the Sale Agreement, the complainant applied for a loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited, but, the said housing finance rejected the loan because the complainant had not supplied the required documents demanded by the bank. The said documents are in the possession of the Opposite Party and the complainant requested the Opposite Party to furnish the documents of the said property, but, due to non-furnishing of the documents by the Opposite Party, the complainant did not get the loan in turn the complainant was not able to purchase the said property and requested the Opposite Party to return the amount of Rs.20 lakhs paid in advance, but, the Opposite Party refused to pay the said amount inspite of repeated requests. The complainant issued a legal notice called upon him to return the amount along with interest for which the Opposite Party replied untenably. Hence, the complaint.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and contended that it is true that they have entered into an Agreement for Sale of the property mentioned above to the complainant for an amount of Rs.46,50,000/-. It is also true that he had paid Rs.20 lakhs as advance towards the purchase of the said property and they did not know that LIC Housing Finance Limited rejected the loan application made by the complainant for purchase of the property.
4. The Opposite Party further contented that they are neither trader nor company involved in any construction activities or real estate business and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider/trader between the complainant and the Opposite Party. There is no any consumer dispute arose between the complainant and the Opposite Party and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this type of complaints as it is civil in nature. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
5. The complainant filed affidavit evidence and marked documents at Ex.C1 to C15. The Opposite Party also filed their affidavit evidence, but, did not mark any documents. Heard the arguments.
6. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;
(i) Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?
(ii) What order?
7. The findings to the above points are;
(i) Negative
(ii) As per final order
REASONS
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavit evidence of both parties, we observed that the complainant entered into a Sale Agreement for purchase of the property bearing No. MDP-1-07573/2016-2017 to the tune of Rs.46,50,000/- and accordingly, he paid an amount of Rs.20 lakhs as advance by way of 3 cheques, but, failed to obtain the loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited and demanded for refund of the said amount. But we are of the opinion that it is purely an individual transaction between the complainant and the Opposite Party as argued by the learned counsel for Opposite Party. There is no any relationship of Consumer and Service Provider between the complainant and Opposite Party. There is no any consumer dispute arose in the averments made in the complaint as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. If at all the complainant requires any relief, he shall approach the proper authority for recovery of the said amount. As such the complaint fails. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
