Complainant present in person
Opponent through Adv.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(11/12/2013)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against the opponent for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is a resident of Kalewadi, Pimpri, Pune. The opponent is dealing in the business of developers and sellers of plots. The opponent has published advertisement in news paper and called for purchasing plot. Accordingly the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- by issuing cheques to the opponent. The advertisement was misleaded and opponent has cheated the complainant. The complainant has paid amount four years back, hence he is entitled for double amount or 18% interest on the said amount.
2] The opponent resisted the claim by filing written version. It has denied the contents of the complaint in toto. It is specifically denied that they have caused deficiency in service. It is the case of the opponent that the complainant himself had cancelled the booking. The proposal of sanction is submitted to the State Government and there was misrepresentation made by the opponent. The complainant has accepted the principal amount without any objection and now he has filed this complaint only with the intention to extract money. The opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has proved that opponent has caused deficiency in service? | In the negative |
2. | What order? | Complaint is dismissed. |
REASONS :-
4] Both the parties have produced documentary evidence including correspondence, advertisement of the opponent and notices. It reveals from the correspondence that the complainant himself has admitted in the letter dated 18/8/2012 that he has received the principal amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- on 14/8/2012. Now he is claiming interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount or double amount of the deposit. It is significant to note that the transaction between the parties is relating to the sale and purchase of land or plot. It is not included as a ‘goods’. Moreover, the opponent has refunded the principal amount to the complainant, then it can not be said that there is deficiency in service.
5] The transaction between the parties is not relating to the consumer transaction, hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. It is observed in various judgments that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, which is relating with the land or plot. This view is consistently taken by Hon’ble National Commission in the following Rulings,
1] “Dinesh Chandra V/S Vijay Kumar Laws (NCD)”
reported in 2003-10-105/CPJ-2004-2-468 NCDRC
2] “M.P. Kalavathi V/S Church of South India Trust
Asso Laws (NCD_ 2000-6-113 NCDRC
3] “Anil Kumar Shah V/S Madan Jana Laws (NCD)
1998-2-64/CPJ, 1998-2-372 NCDRC
4] “Mohan Co. Pvt. Ltd. V/S Santosh Yadav Laws (NCD)
2011-11-65/CPJ-2012-1-335 NCDRC
5] AIR 1987 SC 2328
It reveals from the observations made in the above quoted judgments that, as the dispute between parties is relating to sale and purchase transaction of the land, i.e. immovable property and the remedy for the complainant is to file suit for specific performance of contract or for recovery of the amount in the Civil Court. It has been observed in the above Ruling that, “The first and foremost question requiring determination by this Commission is whether the dispute in question fell within the purview of ‘consumer dispute’ and whether the respondent-complainant could be termed as ‘consumer’ for the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The answer is emphatic No.” It has also observed that “the land can not be termed as ‘goods’. There is no question of service while executing agreement for sale. Hence, the relation between the parties is not as ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint”.
In the light of the above observations, it is crystal clear that the present complaint does not fall under the purview of jurisdiction of Consumer Forum and it further appears that the present complaint is time barred, as the complainant was not diligent. Under these circumstances, I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint stands dismissed with
no order as to the costs.
2. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
3. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 11/12/2013
