Date of Filing:13.07.2009<br /> Date of Order:30.10.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1638 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Manjunath Ramayya Hegde<br /> S/o. Ramayya Surappa Hegde<br /> R/at No. 2211, Lakshmi Nilaya<br /> 12th Main Road, ‘A’ Block<br /> 2nd Stage, Rajajinagar<br /> Bangalore 560 010 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. K.S. Murali<br /> S/o. Satyanarayana Shetty<br /> Partner, M/s. Nandi Builders and Developers<br /> No. 177/A, 22nd Cross, 7th ‘B’ Main<br /> 3rd Block, Jayanagar<br /> Bangalore 560 011<br /> Resident of No. 96, 2nd Stage<br /> BCC Layout – Chandra Layout<br /> Bangalore 560040<br /> <br /> 2. K.M. Shilpa<br /> W/o. K.S. Murali<br /> Partner, M/s. Nandi Builders and Developers<br /> No. 177/A, 22nd Cross, 7th ‘B’ Main<br /> 3rd Block, Jayanagar<br /> Bangalore 560 011<br /> Resident of No. 96, 2nd Stage<br /> BCC Layout – Chandra Layout<br /> Bangalore 560040 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint stating that he is the absolute owner of property bearing No. HIG 444, Sector A, 2nd Phase, KHB Colony, New township, Yelahanka, Bangalore and has entered into Memorandum of Understanding for Joint Development with the opposite parties on 30.06.2007. The house was occupied by the tenant and he got vacated the tenant and he got building demolished and made the site suitable for construction of flats. Inspite of many months opposite parties did not show any inclination to start work and get the plan sanctioned for construction of flats and making a false claim of Rs. 40,00,000/- as per their advocate notice. Complainant submitted that he has paid Rs. 95,50,000/- to the opposite parties as service charges for hiring their services for building flats. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties have abandoned the project and he has been put to net loss of Rs. 14,22,000/-, after deducting / adjusting their interest through deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- taken from opposite parties on 30.06.2007. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs. 14,22,000/- with interest.<br /> 2. Notice issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties put into appearance through advocate and defence version filed stating that complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts. The complainant has suppressed the true facts while filing the complaint. Hence, complainant has played fraud by making false and frivolous claim. Complaint has to be dismissed in limine. As per memorandum of understanding opposite parties have paid Rs. 10,00,000/- as interest free refundable security deposit. The allegation that complainant had paid Rs. 95,50,000/- is false, concocted and frivolous. The complaint is liable to be dismissed by granting cost to the opposite parties. Complainant has played fraud by executing gift deed in favour of his wife. Complainant has suppressed all the true facts and made false and concocted claim against the opposite parties which is untenable in law. The opposite parties are contemplating to take criminal action against the complainant for cheating and playing fraud. Complaint is not the owner of the property on the date of filing of the complaint. For all these reasons stated above the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether the complaint is maintainable?”<br /> 5. On going through the complaint averments, defence version and documents it is clear that the complaint before this fora is not maintainable in law. The opposite parties have produced copy of registered gift deed executed by complainant in favour of his wife on 26.03.2008 before filing the present complaint. The complainant has suppressed this fact. The complainant has not at all stated in his complaint that property has gifted to his wife. The complainant stated in his complaint that he is absolute owner of the property. The complaint has been filed on 13.07.2009 before this fora. Whereas complainant has himself executed gift deed in favour of his wife on 26.03.2008 much before the filing of complaint. Therefore, it is a clear case of suppression of true facts and making false representation in the complaint that he is the absolute owner of the property. Since, there is a suppression of material fact by the complainant on this ground itself complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Secondly, on the facts of the case the complainant cannot be considered as ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The dispute between the parties does not fall under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The present dispute is in the nature of civil dispute. If the complainant has got any grievance against opposite parties, he has to file civil suit before the civil court and agitate the matter there. The opposite parties have filed police complaint against the complainant on 17.12.2008. Copy of police complaint is also produced. The opposite parties have demanded Rs. 40,00,000/- from the complainant.It appears that the present complaint has been filed before this fora as a counter blast to the police complaint filed by the opposite parties. The consumer forums are established with a noble and holistic object to grant quick and inexpensive relief to the consumers if they suffer any injustice from the hands of service providers. But, in this case social and benevolent Act has been misused by the complainant by filing this complaint. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The complainant will be at liberty to agitate the matter before civil court. With this observation I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />