FA No.848/2007 against CC.Sr.No.473/2007 District Consumer Forum-II,Tirupati.

Between:

N.Madhusudhana Chowdary,

S/o.Narayanaswamy Naidu,

Hindu, Aged 61 years, Res.at Plot No.12,

Rajesh Apartments, Giripuram,

Tirupathi.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.Kokkanti Masthan S/o.Hasan Saheb,

   Muslim, Aged 58 years, D.No.16-3-306,

   Vallabai Lane, Nethaji Road,

   Tirupathi.

2.Vice Chairman, TUDA, Tirupathi.

3.Village Secretary, Settipalli  Panchayath,

   Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi.

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant                  : Mr.G.Ramaiah Pillai.

 Counsel for the Respondents           : Mr.T.Srinivasan (for R.1).

                                                            Mr.K.C.C.K.Reddy (for R.2).

                                                            None appeared for R.3.       

QUORUM:  THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******  

1.         Appellant is the unsuccessful complainant.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he was a traffic inspector and doing real estate business as developer by converting lands into house plots and selling them to third parties.    He took Ac.2.14 cents covered under survey No.4/2 of Mangalam village of Settipalli gram panchayath of Tirupati urban mandal to convert it into house plots and got a tentative approval from TUDA in proceedings dt.11.11.2003 consisting of 23 residential plots.  However, opposite party No.1 sub-divided the said land arbitrarily and was selling the plots even without obtaining final approval.  Like wise, opposite party No.1 sold plot No.23 on 07.06.2004 to him by receiving a consideration of Rs.3,82,000/- and executed a registered sale deed.  Opposite party No.1 misled him that there was an approval.  However, he came to know that opposite party No.1 had already gifted the said property to opposite party No.3 under registered gift deed dt.27.10.2004.  Therefore, he sought for a direction to cancel the gift deed dt.26.10.2004 in favour of opposite party No.3 and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony. 

3.         The District Forum opined that the Forum cannot direct cancellation of a gift deed.  It is not a consumer dispute and it does not come under the summary jurisdiction and the complainant can as well approach a Civil Court for cancellation of the gift deed. 

4.         Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate either the fact or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that he being a developer has paid consideration.  Opposite party No.1 ought not to have cancelled the gift deed which attracts the term ‘service’ defined in Sec.2(o) of Consumer Protection Act, and therefore the order of the District Forum be set aside. 

5.         At the outset, we may state that the complainant had sought for declaration of a document viz sale deed.  The positive case of the complainant is that he paid some consideration and obtained sale deed from opposite party No.1.  However, opposite party No.1 without informing him executed a registered gift deed in favour of opposite party No.3,  thus denying the title which he had already conferred on him by way of sale deed.  Having conceded this plea, we do not see how the complainant could be termed as a consumer.  If the gift deed is for property, for whatever reason he ought to have filed a suit for cancellation of the said gift deed and suit for declaration cannot be filed under Consumer Protection Act.  There is no question of service involved in the transaction as pleaded by the complainant. 

6.         The  learned counsel for the appellant asserted that since he has sought for  compensation, the complaint was maintainable and therefore, the District Forum went wrong in dismissing the complaint. We may state that the relief of compensation sought for was consequential relief of cancellation of gift deed.  Evidently, the complaint cannot be filed seeking compensation for mental agony without there being a main relief of seeking declaration nor it constitutes a deficiency in service or the objects that were mentioned in Sec.2(o) of Consumer Protection Act.  None of these clauses attract the case on hand.  It is a clear case where the complainant sought for cancellation of a gift deed executed by opposite party No.1.  It comes under the purview of Civil Court.  A consumer case would be decided by the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act.  Apart from it a case was filed against opposite party No.1, an individual, which is neither a society nor a venture.  The complaint cannot be filed against the opposite parties.  We agree with the opinion of the District Forum that the dispute does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  We do not see any irregularity in the order passed by the District Forum.

7.         In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  However, in the circumstances, no costs.

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER

                                                                     Dt:19.01.2009.