M/s. Bhumi Constructions and Developers, V/S H.Eswarappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/1316/2008

H.Eswarappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Bhumi Constructions and Developers, - Opp.Party(s)

IP

13 Aug 2008

ORDER

IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1316/2008

H.Eswarappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. Bhumi Constructions and Developers,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

13/08/2008 Complainant/By Sri:IP Opposite Party/By: Complainant is present in person. The defence version filed stating that, the complainant has purchased site from Sri. C.M. Nagaraj, Sri. M. Muniswamappa and Sri. Venkatesh and opposite party has not sold the schedule site to the complainant. Nelamangala planning authority had accorded the approval of residential layout in favour of Sri. C.M. Nagaraj, Sri. M. Muniswamappa and Sri. Venkatesh by order dated 16/06/2005. The said persons have to provide the amenities and not the opposite parties. Complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant was present in person and he was convinced of the objection taken by the opposite party. Opposite party has produced sale deed. As per the sale deed dated 7th January-2006 the complainant had purchased site bearing No.163 from Sri. C.M. Nagaraj, Sri. M. Muniswamappa and Sri. Venkatesh. Therefore, the said vendors have to provide all the amenities to the layout. If the complainant has got any grievance it should be addressed to the vendors of the site and it is the duty and obligation of the owners of the layout to provide all essential amenities and to develop the layout as per the plan and directions of Nelamangala Planning Authority. Therefore, the present complaint filed against the opposite party is not maintainable. The complainant will be at liberty to file a complaint against the owners of the layout for getting the required amenities and facilities. With this observation, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable against the present opposite party. The complaint is dismissed. No costs. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Rhr.

13/08/2008 Complainant/By Sri:IP Opposite Party/By: Complainant is present in person. The defence version filed stating that, the complainant has purchased site from Sri. C.M. Nagaraj, Sri. M. Muniswamappa and Sri. Venkatesh and opposite party has not sold the schedule site to the complainant. Nelamangala planning authority had accorded the approval of residential layout in favour of Sri. C.M. Nagaraj, Sri. M. Muniswamappa and Sri. Venkatesh by order dated 16/06/2005. The said persons have to provide the amenities and not the opposite parties. Complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant was present in person and he was convinced of the objection taken by the opposite party. Opposite party has produced sale deed. As per the sale deed dated 7th January-2006 the complainant had purchased site bearing No.163 from Sri. C.M. Nagaraj, Sri. M. Muniswamappa and Sri. Venkatesh. Therefore, the said vendors have to provide all the amenities to the layout. If the complainant has got any grievance it should be addressed to the vendors of the site and it is the duty and obligation of the owners of the layout to provide all essential amenities and to develop the layout as per the plan and directions of Nelamangala Planning Authority. Therefore, the present complaint filed against the opposite party is not maintainable. The complainant will be at liberty to file a complaint against the owners of the layout for getting the required amenities and facilities. With this observation, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable against the present opposite party. The complaint is dismissed. No costs. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Rhr.