Karnataka

Mysore

CC/35/2017

K.S.Thimme Gowda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnataka Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mahadeva.B.M

22 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSURU
No.1542 F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara,
Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysuru-570023
 
Complaint Case No. CC/35/2017
( Date of Filing : 20 Jan 2017 )
 
1. K.S.Thimme Gowda
K.S.Thimme Gowda, S/o Subbe Gowda, Kaduvinahosahally Village, Arakalagudu Taluk, Hassan District.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Karnataka Bank Limited
The Manager, Karnataka Bank Limited, Chikunda Branch, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. H M Shivakumara Swamy PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Devakumar M.C MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 22 Jun 2018
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.35/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 22nd June 2018

 

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

 

COMPLAINANT/S

 

:

K.S.Thimme Gowda, S/o Subbe Gowda, Kaduvinahosahally Village, Arakalagudu Taluk, Hassan District.

 

(Sri Mahadeva, Adv.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V/S

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

:

The Manager, Karnataka Bank Limited, Chikunda Branch, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District.

 

(Sri A.V.Jayarama Rao, Adv.)

 

 

Nature of complaint

:

Deficiency in service

Date of filing of complaint

:

20.01.2017

Date of Issue notice

:

27.01.2017

Date of order

:

22.06.2018

Duration of Proceeding

:

1 YEAR 5 MONTHS 2 DAYS

        

 

 

Sri. Devakumar,M.C.

Member

 

  1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party, alleging negligence and deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at 24% p.a. for the loss of crop from the date of purchase to till the date with other reliefs.
  2.     The complainant purchased the landed properties from opposite party, in a public auction through court auction on 27.01.1999, for a consideration of Rs.43,666/- and paid the entire sale consideration about 17 years back.  The Hon’ble Civil Judge and JMFC at Periyapatna finally issued a sale certificate on 29.01.2013.  The concerned authorities, issued an endorsement, without changing khata, stating the lands does not fall in their jurisdiction.  The complainant repeatedly demanded the opposite party for rectification of the jurisdiction apart from issue of legal notice on 05.05.2015, which was vaguely replied by opposite party on 25.05.2015.  Thereby, the complainant and his family suffered loss to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- due to wrong documentation and the same is alleged as deficiency in service.  Hence, the complaint, seeking reliefs.
  3.     The opposite party filed their version and submits, the complaint is misconceived and not maintainable, as there is no relationship of service provider and consumer and there is no deficiency in service by them.  Further, for recovery of decretal amount, the mortgaged property was put to auction by the court and duly verifying the documents they participated in the bid and the same has been accepted by the court.  The allegation of instituting a suit before a court which was not having jurisdiction is denied.  The property was put into public auction by the civil court.  The payment of sale consideration in the year 1999 is admitted and the sale certificate was obtained after 17 years from the court.  Hence, the allegation is denied and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
  4.     Both parties led evidence by filing affidavit and relied on several documents to establish their respective contentions.  Both filed written arguments and submitted oral arguments.  Perused the material on record and posted for orders.
  5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-
  1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
  2.  Whether the complainant establishes negligence and deficiency in service by the opposite party bank, for non-rectification of the jurisdiction of the property purchased in an auction through court, despite of receipt of entire sale consideration and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
  3. What order?

 

  1.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- Does not call for discussion.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

 

  1.    Point No.1:- The complainant has already filed a suit before the civil court seeking reliefs and the same has attained finality. Thereby the complaint filed by the complainant does not call for any relief and the complainant is liberty to seek remedy under the same proceedings.  Thereby, we opine that, seeking compensation for the negligence and deficiency in service is not maintainable before this Forum.  As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.   
  2.    Point No.2:- In view of the observations made in point No.1, this point does not call for discussion.
  3.    Point No.3:-  With the above observations in point No.1, we proceed to pass the following :-

:: O R D E R ::

  1. The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
  2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

 

(D

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. H M Shivakumara Swamy]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Devakumar M.C]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.