Date of Filing : 23.04.2021
Date of Disposal :01.07.2021
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED : 1st JULY 2021
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr KRISHNAMURTHY B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No 427/2021
Mr Jagdeesh A S,
S/o A N Sadashivaiah,
No 10, Banashankari,
I Main Road, 7A Cross,
Maruthi Layout,
Dasarahalli, Hebbal,
Bengaluru – 560 024.
(By Mr M S Jithendra) . Appellant - Versus -
1. M/s Sree Sai Properties,
Having its Office at No.99,
SREE SAI COMPLEX,
2nd Floor, Above State Bank of India,
Kokol Road, Rajanakunte,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
Rep by Mr Somashekar Reddy M R
S/o Late Muniswamy Reddy
Managing Partner
M/s Sree Sai Properties.
2. Mr M Manjunath,
S/o Late Maniappa Reddy,
M/s Sree Sai Properties,
Addeviswanathapura Village,
Hesaragatta Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru - 560 078,
Also available at
Having Office at No.99,
SREE SAI COMPLEX,
2nd Floor, Above State Bank of India,
Kokol Road, Rajanakunte,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
3. Mr Somashekar,
No.72, 11th Cross,
Gokula I Stage,
Mathikere,
Bengaluru - 560 054
4. Mr N Rajagopal,
Presently residing at
No.26, Sharya Nilaya,
3rd Cross, Lake Kishore Garden,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru - 560 097. Respondents
- : ORDER : -
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Complaint against the Order dated 02.02.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint No.20/2021 by II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru.
2. The brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant has entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 13.02.2014 with OP1 for purchase of property bearing Sy No 125/2 measuring 15 guntas for a total sale consideration of Rs.28,50,000/- and has paid a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- as Advance. In the meantime, on 28.03.2016, he purchased site No.13 from OPs 1 & 2 by way of an Absolute Sale Deed for a total Sale consideration of Rs.18,50,000/-. Thereafter, he came to know that the site No.13 belongs to the category of Schedule Caste within the period of limitation of non-alienation clause and further he also came to know that OPs had already sold this property to a 3rd party by name Mr. Manjunath C S/o Marianna on 23.07.2014. Hence, he approached OPs 1 & 2 accusing them of having misguided him and after negotiation with the OPs, on 15.02.2020 OP4 purchased the said site No.13 by way of Sale Deed and issued 2 Cheques to the Complainant one for Rs.9,30,000/- vide Cheque No.392034 dated 15.02.2020 and another one for Rs.7,20,000/- vide Cheque No.392033 dated 15.02.2020 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bengaluru respectively. When the Complainant had presented these Cheques for encashment both the cheques BOUNCED for ‘INSUFFICIENT FUNDS’. Therefore, on 25.08.2020, he got issued a Legal Notice to OPs informing them about the Bouncing of Cheques and calling upon them to make payment, in lieu of the Cheques. After receipt of Notice, OPs neither replied nor complied with the demands made therein. Hence, he lodged the present Complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, seeking direction to the OPs to comply with the Agreement for Sale dated 13.02.2014 or in the alternative to Refund the sum of Rs.18,50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. along with Rs.50,00,000/- as Compensation towards loss of accrued value off schedule A property, Rs.25,00,000/- towards mental agony & physical sufferings and litigation expenses.
3. The District Commission, after hearing the arguments of the Complainant on Admission and on perusal of the Complaint, Dismissed the same on point of pecuniary jurisdiction as the dispute involved both land and plot.
4. Being not satisfied with the Impugned Order, Complainant is in Appeal.
5. Heard the arguments of the Appellant.
6. Firstly, the Respondents/OPs are doing business on the basis of Partnership, selling the lands to prospective Purchasers, as such lands have been sold to several persons and carrying on business activity as the same is illegal transaction. In the present case, the activities of OP does not come within the definition of CONSUMER.
Secondly, Complaint is filed on 11.01.2021 and the Complainant is praying for enforcing performance of Agreement for Sale dated 13.02.2014 in respect of Schedule A property or in the alternative, seeking return of the amount paid by him with interest @ 18% p.a, along with Compensation and costs, is not maintainable.
7. Perused the Records & the Impugned Order. The District Commission by referring the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter between Ganeshilal vs. Shyam, wherein it was held that, as far as Housing Construction and Sale of Flats by Builders or Society is concerned, that would be on a different footing, whereas, Sale of plot of Land simpliciter is concerned and if there is any Complaint, same would not be covered under CP Act 1986 and Dismissed the. Based on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the District Commission has rightly Dismissed the Complaint which does not call for any interference. However, remedy is available to the Complainant to negotiate the matter with OPs for execution and Registration of Sale Deed in his favour or in the alternative for refund of the amount.
In view of the aforesaid observations, the Appeal stands Dismissed, with no order as to costs.
8. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, free of cost immediately.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*s
