COMPLAINTS FILED ON:21.01.2012
DISPOSED ON:30.06.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
30th DAY OF JUNE-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.147/2012
Complainant | Chandra Shekar Rao S/o Late Ramanna, Aged about 63 years, R/at No.4, 4th Cross, ‘A’ Sector, Muneswara Block, Amruthanagar, Bangalore-560 092. In person V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY | ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT LTD., Builders, Developers, Promoters, No.456, 1st Floor, 9th Cross, 17th Main, J.P.Nagar, 2nd Phase, Bangalore-560 078. Represented by its Managing Directors, 1. N.Soma Shekara S/o Nagaraj Iyer, No.24, 8th Main, 14th Cross, N.S.Palya, BTM Layout, Bangalore-76. 2. Rajesh V.M. S/o Muniveeranna, No.18, 2nd Floor, Hanumanthappa Compound, Vinayakanagar, J.P.Nagar, 5th Phase, Bangalore-78. Ex-parte. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant in person filed this complaint Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Pa) to refund Rs.25,000/- and for damages of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. In spite of service of notice, Ops1 & 2 failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
3. OP-3 is given up as his addressed was not traced.
4. In order to substantiate complaint averments, complainant filed affidavit evidence.
5. Arguments from complainant’s side heard.
6. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these records it becomes clear that the complainant entered into sale agreement of site No.54 measuring 1500 sq.ft formed in Golden Daffodils at Yenangur, Yeddulathipeenhalli etc., in Jangamkote Hobli, Siddalaghatta Taluk, Chickballapura District, for sale consideration of Rs.5,70,000/- and paid an advance amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to OP-ISIRI Properties Private Limited. Ops failed to come forward for registration of the said site till the end of March-2010. The complainant has lodged the Police complaint at J.P.Nagar Police Station and the Police registered the case against the Ops. Document No.1is the Agreement deed dt.15.10.2008 executed by OP-1 represented by its Director and Authorized Signatory Rajesh V.M. i.e., OP2. Document No.2 is the copy of the F.I.R. registered against the Ops by J.P.Nagar Police. OP2 issued cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- on 30.05.2010 on Karnataka Bank, Jayanagar, 9th Block, Bangalore in favour of the complainant requesting to wait for some time for registration of the said site. As OP2 has not registered the property the complainant presented the said cheque and the same was dishonoured for want of funds. When the complainant proceeded to take further action, the OP2 requested for some days and finally on 09.07.2007 the OP2 has registered some other similar property taking the entire sale consideration and registration expenses. OP2 expressed his financial difficulty and borrowed from the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 09.07.2010 and promised to pay back the said amount on 15.06.2011 and accordingly OP2 issued cheque for the said amount of Rs.25,000/-. OP2 has not repaid the said amount. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection and the same was returned as unpaid on 03.12.2011 due to insufficient of funds. The complainant requested OP2 to repay the said amount of Rs.25,000/- but OP2 failed to pay the same. The Legal Notice dt.22.12.2011 was issued to OP2 but the same was returned as not claimed.
Thus it is stated that OP2 is liable to refund Rs.25,000/-.
It may be noted that as per the agreement deed dt.15.10.2008 OP2 representing OP1 executed the registered sale deed on 09.07.2007 in respect of some other similar property taking the entire sale consideration and registration expenses. Thus the transaction in question has come to an end on executing the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. The claim regarding an amount of Rs.25,000/- advanced to OP2 for his personal expenses and the cheque issued by him being dishonoured are not the matters relating to Consumer Dispute and the complainant cannot become a Consumer to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum for recovery of the said amount of Rs.25,000/- from OP2. The complainant is at liberty to approach some other Forum for recovery of the said amount. The said amount of Rs.25,000/- is not the part and parcel of the sale consideration in respect of the site agreed to be sold. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint filed is not maintainable as the complainant is not a Consumer and the dispute regarding recovery of RS.25,000/- from OP2 is not a Consumer Dispute. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant dismissed as not maintainable.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(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 30th day of JUNE-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
