Date of Filing: 25/08/2011
Date of Order: 27/01/2012
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 27th DAY OF JANUARY 2012
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
C.C. NO.1597 OF 2011
S.I.S.Rajendran (on behalf of my children),
No.614, Maruthi Street,
Opp. Florence School, Subbannapalaya,
Banaswadi Road, Bangalore-560 033. …. Complainant.
V/s
(1) Mr. Krishnamurthy of M/s. Sai Raghva Builders & Developers
Mr. Ramakrishna of M/s.Sai Raghva Builders & Developers
Sai Raghava Builders & Developers,
192/1, 2nd Floor, 10th Cross, 11th Main,
Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560 027.
(2) The Secretary,
Neralur Gram Panchayat,
Neralur, Hosur Road,
Bangalore-562 107. …. Opposite Parties.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRARAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the 1st Opposite Party to put up compound wall, make entry passage to the layout, make streets in the block, erect marking stones, make strom water drainage passage, plant trees/plants with enclosures, hand over the layout to the 2nd opposite party, or to take back the sites and pay Rs.6,00,000/- each with compounding interest with 15% per annum, Rs.2,000/- towards expenses and to direct the 2nd opposite party to reduce the taxes by 75%, are necessary:-
The complainant has become the member of M/s Sai Raghva Builders & Developers of the opposite party in the year 1990. A scheme was launched by the opposite party No.1 for developing the “C” block in Sai Raghava Nagar. As the amounts has been paid in installments. Accordingly the complainant desired to get sites in their children’s name became member and paid the amounts regularly. The complainant had taken staff of the 1st opposite party to the spot where only barren land was there and they promised that after registration they will do their work. When the complainant went to the land, the persons stated that he cannot have a right to enter the other land through their properties. When they enquired with one Manjunath of the 2nd opposite party he mentioned that the 1st opposite party did not hand over the layout. There is no DC conversion, etc.,. Hence the complaint.
2. Opposite party No.2 though served remained absent through the proceedings. In brief the version of opposite party No.1 are:-
The complainant became the member of the 1st opposite party and later his wife became the member of the 1st opposite party and they paid the installments. A sale deed was executed in favour of S.R.Rajaparthiban and S.R.Bhuvaneswari on 23.06.2001 itself, after the layout being formed and after the sites being selected, the possession of the property was handed-over to the purchasers and they are in possession of the property. The conversion order, layout plans are already handed over. The other residences have not complained. After lapse of 10 years this complaint is filed. It is barred by time. Now the complainant cannot expect the opposite parties to do anything. There is no agreement to put compound wall or to make any other thing. All the allegations to the contrary are denied. There is no deficiency in service.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the complainant submitted that his complaint and documents be read as his evidence. After filing the version the opposite party No.1 did not turn up at all. Hence the arguments were heard.
4. The points for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complaint as brought is maintainable?
(b) What order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) & (B): As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record it is established that the complainant became member of the opposite party on 03.01.1995 and his wife has become the member of the opposite party on 11.03.1997. The wife is not a party to the proceedings. It is further established that one Mr.S.R.Rajaparthiban had purchased a site measuring 30 x 40 feet in site No.10 old No.105, Phase III, of “C” Block, Raghava Nagar and one Miss.S.R.Bhuvaneswari had purchased site No.11, Old No.104, in ‘C’ Block, Raghava Nagar situated in Neraluru Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, from Smt.Venkatamma, Sri.Chikka Yella Reddy, Sri.Ramaswamy Reddy, represented by their power of attorney holder Sri.N.S.Reddy. But in this case those purchasers and vendors are not parties to the proceedings. Even it is seen that the tax is paid by Bhuvaneswari and Rajendran to the 2nd opposite party. In what way complainant is concerned with the 1st opposite party is not stated. Merely the said lands are fellow as on date, no boundary is fixed no demarcation is made no roads are formed etc.,. It is for the purchaser of the property and the vendors are concerned. How can the complainant seek grievance against the 1st opposite party or the 2nd opposite party. He may be Father. He is not G.P.A. holder or authorized by purchasers.
7. Even the tax is a matter between the Grama Panchayath and its policy. That cannot be decided by this Forum. The Forum cannot decide what is the municipal tax or panchayath tax, fixing of the taxes is not in the arena of consumers Forum. That power is not vested with the consumer forum.
8. Hence under these circumstances the complaint as brought is not maintainable. If the purchaser of the property has any grievance, they can approach the forum if they are entitled to and advised so for which this order will not come in that way.
9. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 27th Day of January 2012)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
