BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 14th November 2016
PRESENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HONBLE PRESIDENT
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR : MEMBER
ORDER IN
C.C.No.38/2014
(Admitted on 21.01.2014)
1. K. Subbanna Bhat,
S/o K. Krishna Bhat,
Aged about 72 years,
2. Smt. S. Vanamalini,
W/o K. Subbanna Bhat,
Aged about 65 years,
Both are R/at Purusharakatte,
Narimogru Village,
Puttur Tq, D.K.
….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: SD)
VERSUS
Karnataka State Financial Corporation,
Branch Office No.330/50,
3rd Floor, Somayaji Building,
Bunts Hostel Road,
Mangalore 575 003,
D.K. District,
By its Assistant General Manager.
….....OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: KBK)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HONBLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant contends that U.P Abbas Sold Land S.No.282/1C measuring 27 cents of Narimogaru of Village, Puttur Taluk in favour of Mr. Mohammed Ismail and his wife Smt. Rukya Ahemmad under registered sale deed dated 12.11.2003 and the purchasers there in sold this land along with other lands in favour of complainant in registered sale deed dated 5.12.2007 ever since the purchaser complainant as actual possession and enjoyment of the lands and revenue records stands in the complainants name. it seems that U.P. Abbas had given plot No.47 in S.No.342/1C of Harady Village Puttur Taluk as collateral security. Aforesaid flat seems to have been taken over by the opposite party by exercising power under section 13(2) & 13 (4) of the SARFEASI ACT.
The said U.P. Abbas seems to have incurred certain loans in other loan Accounts and were are closed in one time settlement claim and the loan account are closed by opposite party. As seen from the opposite parties letter dated 25.11.2004 bearing reference No. KSFC: MNG:BO:ML:4198:04-05 Ten documents in connection with the loan were returned to U.P. Abbas in letter dated 6.10.2004. the lands purchased by complainant from Mohammed Ismail and Smt. Rukya bearing S.No.282/1C measuring 27 cents and S.No.282/1B2 measuring 67 cents of Narimogru Village, are no way connected with the loan transaction of U.P. Abbas and the lands were never subjected to any charge/mortgage/collateral security or in any other manner by furnishing guarantor of the aforesaid properites of the opposite parties as the purchase was free from any charge of encumbrance.
On a written request by opposite party to Tahasildar Puttur dated 22.02.2010 Tahasildar entered the charge in favour of the opposite party in respect of this properties purchased by complainant’s Sy.Nos. 282/1B2 on a petition under section 31 & 32 of State Financial Corporation Act (herein after referred to as schedule property) before the District Judge Mangalore as per Mis case No.60/2003 for a personal decree against Abbas Haji with two other guarantor. The prayer is seen in the mis case to decree against Haji along with other two guarantors. The charge were created any guarantee in respect of two Sy. Nos. sold in favour of the complainants property the Revenue Inspector effected mutation. An appeal preferred before Assistant Commissioner by complainants and later a review petition before Deputy Commissioner who by order dated 30.5.2012 set aside the mutation entry and remanded the matter back to the Tahasildar Puttur. The Tahasildar Puttur passed final order on dated 06.04.2013 as per which MR.No.333/2009.10 was ordered to be deleted. At no point of time either the complainants or their vendor even U.P. Abbas have ever given schedule property mortgage/charge/collateral security and as such opposite party not allowed to give an application to the Tahasildar. There was a collusion between opposite party and Revenue Officers the complainants being Senior Citizen put to great hardship, injury, mental shock and financial crisis by the mistake committed by the opponents. Hence seeks an order directing to opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/.
II. Opposite party filed written version. The opposite parties contention for a claim of purchase of schedule property by complainant is disputed. U.P. Abbas was guarantor to one Narayan Shreyan for loan availed by opposite party with the Sy.No.342/1C of Haradi Village as collateral Security is admitted. Allegation in para 4 & 5 are also admitted. The opposite party requested the Tahashildar to enter change of opposite party in respect of schedule property is admitted. Repudiation are given by the complainants before the Tahasildar for cancelation of charge in favour of opposite party in repsect of the schedule property and the appeal preferred by complainants before Assistant Commissioner and remanded the matter back to Tahasildar and removed the encumbrance noted in the Revenue documents of schedule property are admitted. Exchange of notice and reply admitted. It is further contended that above U.P. Abbas was guarantor for repayment of the loan advanced to M/s. Honest Towers, Puttur. The opposite party obtained same property as security of the payment of the loan under section 32 (g) and 42 (B) of State Financial Corporations Act the opposite party is entitled to invoke the provisions of Karnataka Public Money Recovery Act for use as land Revenue and as such request was made to the Tahasildar Puttur. The complainants themselves managed revenue officials to delete entry of the charge of this opposite party for recovery of dues as land revenue without notice to the opposite party. However on the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner of D.K., the charge was restored in the year 2010. There is no privity of contract no transaction took place between the complainants and the opposite party hence there is no cause of action for the complainant against opposite party. The authority of the Opposite Party under the K.P.M.R Act, SFC Act and KLR Act cannot be questioned. Secondly the Tahasildar, Puttur informed the descriptions of the property of U.P. Abbas to cause entry in the RTC. The Tahasildar Puttur is necessary party to the proceedings. The averments of complainant show that the grievance of the complainant are against the legal process initiated by the opposite party. The complainants have already invoked the provisions of the KLR Act and have set-right the RTC of the properties. Hence the complaint before this Forum is not maintainable. Without prejudice the compensation claimed are exorbitant and without any basis. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the grievances are within the domain of revenue authorities under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The opposite party has no transaction, relation, contract, obligation, liability with the complainants. At no point opposite party rendered in his service to the complainant. Hence seeks dismissal of complainant.
In support of the above complainant Mr. K. Subbanna Bhat filed affidavit evidence as Cw1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr K. Vasantha Shetty (Rw1) Manager (Recovery) also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex R1 to R7 detailed in the annexure here below.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i): Negative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i) & (ii): There is no allegation made by the complainant in their complaint and also the rival contentions raised by the opposite party and there was no serious dispute raised by the opposite party as to the purchase of the Schedule property made by the complainant. The revenue entry affected at the instructions of opposite party of a charge in its favour in respect of the revenue records providing to schedule property of complainant was already deleted by the Tahashildar Puttur. This is undisputed by the parties.
There is no allegation in the complaint of any relationship of consumer in respect of complainant and of opponent as a service provider to complainant. The word consumer and deficiency in service are defined in the C P Act as under:
d) Consumer” means any person who
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has
been paid or promised or partly paid and partly
promised, or under any system of deferred
payment and includes any user of such goods
other than the person who buys such goods for
consideration paid or promised or partly paid or
partly promised, or under any system of deferred
payment when such use is made with the
approval of such person, but does not include a
person who obtains such goods for resale or for
any commercial purpose; or
(ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration
Which has been paid or promised or promised or
partly promised, or under any system of deferred
payment and includes any beneficiary of such
services other than the person who (hires or avails
of) the services for consideration paid or promised,
or partly paid and partly promised, or under any
system of deferred payments, when such services
are availed of with the approval of the first mention-
ed person (but does not include a person who avails
of such services for any commercial purpose)
(g) deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, short
coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and
manner of performance which is required to be
maintained by or under any law for the time
being in force or has been undertaken to be per-
formed by a person in pursuance of a contract or
otherwise in relation to any service;
As seen from the allegations made in the complainant as already mentioned there is not a single word mentioned by the complainants against opponent as a service provider or allegations of deficiency in providing service by the opponent. When there was no manner of obligations on the part of opposite party to provide any of service whatever nature in favour of complainant, there is no such relationship of ‘Consumer’ and service provider between complainant and opposite party. Hence we are of the view that the complainant before this Forum is completely miss conceived.
Remedy to the complainant on any of the ground claimed by the complainant against the opponent cannot be granted by this Forum. Even as we can make out from the notes of argument filed on behalf of the complainant from the points during the course of arguments by the learned counsel. There is nothing mentioned as to how jurisdiction of this Forum can be involved by complainant. Hence the complaint is devoid of merits and as such we answer above points No.1 & 2 in the negative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint dismissed with the cost.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 14th November 2016)
MEMBER (SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR) D.K. District Consumer Forum Additional Bench Mangalore. | | PRESIDENT (SRI.VISHWESHWARA BHAT D) D.K. District Consumer Forum Additional Bench Mangalore. |
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 Mr. K. Subbanna Bhat
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainants:
No.1: 01.06.2006 Notice issued by the Tahasildar, Puttur to K.S.F.C
No.2: 24.08.2006 Notice issued by the K.S.F.C. to the Tahasildar
No.3: 04.09.2006 Notice issued by the Tahasildar, Puttur To K.S.F.C
No.4: 19.08.2009 Notice issued by the K.S.F.C to the Deputy Commissioner of Mangaluru.
No.5: 02.01.2009 Notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner Of Mangaluru to the Tahasildar, Puttur
No.6: 22.02.2010 Notice issued by the K.S.F.C to the Deputy Commissioner, Mangaluru
No.7: 20.03.2010 Notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner Of Mangaluru to the Tahasildar, Puttur
No.8: 04.09.2010 Notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner Puttur in RRT.Sr.No.133/2010 .11
No.9: Appeal memo filed by the complainants Against opposite party before the Assistant Commissioner of Puttur
No.10: 30.11.2011 Copy of the order of Assistant Commissioner, Puttur in RRT.SR.No.133/2010.11
No.11: 30.05.2010 Copy of the order of Assistant Commissioner, Puttur in RRT.SR.No.325/2011.12
No.12: 06.04.2013 Copy of the order of Tahasildar, Puttur In RRT.CR.No.6/2012 13
No.13: 12.1.2003 Registered Sale Deed Executed by U.P.Abbas In favour of Mohammad Ismail and Rukiya Mohammad Registered as Document No.PUT 1.01538/2003.04 in CD no.PUTD1, entered in Book 1, Registered in the office of Sub
Registrar of Puttur
No.14: 29.11.2003 Registered Sale Deed Executed by K.Nephisa In favour of Mohamad Ismail and Rukiya Mohammad Registered as Document No.PUT.1.01632/2003.04 in CD no. PUTD1, entered in Book 1, Registered inThe office of Sub Registrar of Puttur.
No.15: 09.06.2014 Copy of Mutation register
No.16: RTC
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1: Mr. K. Vasantha Shetty, Manager (Recovery)
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: 02.10.2009 Letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner Of D.K. District to Tahasildar, Puttur to K.S.F.C
Ex.R2: 22.02.2010 Letter issued by the K.S.F.C to the Deputy Commissioner of D.K. District
Ex.R3: 19.08.2009 Letter issued by the K.S.F.C to the Deputy Commissioner of D.K. District
Ex.R4: 30.11.2011 Certified copy of the order of Assistant Commissioner, Puttur in RRT.SR.No.133/2010.11
Ex.R5: 06.04.2013 Copy of the order of Tahasildar Puttur in CDS/RRT/CR/6/2012.13
Ex.R6: 30.05.2012 Certified copy of the order of Assitant Commisioner, Puttur in RRT.SR.No.325/2011.12
Ex.R7: Original RTC Sy.No.282/1B2, 282/1C
Dated: 14.11.2016 PRESIDENT
