M/s. State Financial Corporation, V/S Amaresh S/o. Chinnappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/42

Amaresh S/o. Chinnappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. State Financial Corporation, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Keshavarao

17 Dec 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/42

Amaresh S/o. Chinnappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. State Financial Corporation, The Ciry Muncipal Council						...........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

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Amaresh against Opposites 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to pay an amount of Rs. 5,79,926/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, opposite No-1 has issued notification for sale of plot bearing Nos. 150 to 152 and 154 to 158 in Sy.No. 961 hissa B of Sindhanur village. The complainant purchased the plots for total value of Rs. 5,00,000/- and got executed registered sale deed dt. 18-06-07 from opposite No-1, he filed an application before opposite No-2 by paying an amount of Rs. 800/- towards mutation fees, his name was mutated in the Municipal records. Thereafter it was noticed by him that in the year 2000-01 itself, plots bearing Sy.No. 154 to 158 were not open plots but those area was earmarked by the Town Planning Authority as park (garden) area, he enquired the matter with opposite No-1 but it not in properly answered with only one contention that they have acquired the above plots U/sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act of 1951 from defaulter owners. Prior to the sale there were defective title in respect of the plot bearing Sy.Nos. 154 to 158, hence it was not a sale in the eyes of law and opposite No-1 liable to refund the consideration amount. Opposite No-2 illegally mutated his name to the said plots without verifying the records and thereby both the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services, accordingly he filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in it. 3. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their respective Advocates and filed written versions. The brief facts of the written version of opposite No-1 are that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, it is barred by limitation it is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. The allegations made by the complainant against it are specifically denied, plot bearing No. 154 to 158 of Sy.No. 961 hissa B of Sindhanur village acquired by it as per the proceedings U/sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act of 1951, it was made publicly known by issuing notification complainant inspected all the records and physically verified the plots. It is denied that those plots were ear marked for the purposes of park in the year 2000-01. It might have modified by the concerned authorities in collusion with defaulter of the known complainant, verified the map existing on the date of the sale and purchase by registered sale deed annexed with the above map. Hence there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. The brief facts of the written version of opposite No-2 are that, the ear-marking of plots Nos. 154 to 158 for the purposes of park was noticed at the time of removal of encroachment as per the direction of the Honble High Court, there was no suppression of any material facts as alleged by the complainant Town Planning Authority have modified the lay out and approved it, as per the rules and regulations and as per the modification plan TMC adopted modified layout. There is no deficiency in service on its part, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grunds. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite No-1 KSFC sold plot bearing Nos. 154 to 158 carved out of Sy.No. 961 Hissa B of Sindhanur village for valuable consideration by suppressing the fact that those plots were ear marked for the purposes of park by the Town Planning Authority in the year 2000-01 and it had no saleable right over the said plots and handed over the possession of it and thereby valid title and possession of said plots not transferred to him thereafter it shows its negligence in rectifying the defects, opposite No-2 TMC Sindhanur mutated his name illegally, even though it has got knowledge of keeping those sides for parking purposes, it shows its negligence in mutating his name and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8, Ex.P-7(1) are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Branch Manager of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-18 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of the Municipal Commissioner of opposite No-2 TMC Sindhanur was filed, he was noted as RW-2. No documents filed and marked on its behalf. 8. On perusal of the pleadings of the complainant, opposite No-1 & 2 and their respective affidavit-evidences and documents filed by respective parties, we are of the view that the following facts are undisputed facts between the parties: 1. It is a fact that the complainant Amaresh purchased plot bearing Nos. 154 to 158 along with other plots, carved out of Sy.No. 961 of Hissa B of Sindhanur village from opposite No-1 KSFC for consideration amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- under registered sale deed dt. 18-06-07 by registered sale deed Ex.P-1 annexed with map at Ex.P-1(1). 2. It is undisputed fact that the complainant put into possession of said plots bearing Nos. 154 to 158 by opposite No-1 in pursuance of the sale deed Ex.P-1, its recitals on Page No-3 complainant clearly admitted of taking of possession of plot Nos. 154 to 158 from opposite No-1 and documents Ex.R-9 wherein complainant admitted in writing regarding the receipt of the possession of those plots from opposite No-1. 3. It is further undisputed fact that the complainant got mutated the plots bearing Nos. 154 to 158 by paying fees of Rs. 800/- in opposite No-2s TMC office in pursuance of the sale deed and his name was mutated vide mutation order Ex.P-3 in the office of opposite No-2, thereafter he paid taxes to the said properties vide Tax Receipt at Ex.P-3(1). 9. In the light of these undisputed facts between the parties, now we have to appreciate the case of respective parties: First point for our consideration is whether, sale of plots bearing Nos. 154 to 158 by the opposite No-1 was of public auction sale as contended by learned advocate for opposite No-1 or as to whether it was a sale to the complainant under negotiation in between opposite No-1 and complainant, if it is not an auction sale as submitted by the learned advocate for complainant, then the complainant is a consumer and his complaint before this Forum is maintainable within the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. If it is a public auction sale, then he is not a consumer within the meaning and definition of 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act and his complaint before the Consumer Forum in respect of the alleged grievances of auction sale is not maintainable. 10. The learned advocate for opposite No-1 mainly contended that the complainant is not a consumer, opposite No-1 is not a trader or service provider as the subject matter of this complaint is in respect of public auction sale, he relied on the ruling reported in AIR 2009 SC 1607 UT Chandigarh Administration and Another V/s. Amarjeet Singh and Another in which their lords ships held as (a) Consumer Protection Act-1986_Complaint__jurisdiction to entertain__public Auction of existing sites__ purchaser/lessee is not a consumer__owner is not the trader or service provider__Any grievance of purchaser/lessee__would not give rise to complainant or consumer dispute__Fora under the Act cannot entertain or decide any complaint of purchaser or decide any complaint by purchaser/lessee against owner of sites. 11. In pursuance of the submissions made on both sides and in view of the principles of the ruling referred by the learned advocate for opposite No-1, we have to appreciate the case of each parties to see as to whether the said sale was a public auction sale or it was a sale by negotiation between the complainant and opposites. 12. In this regard documents Ex.R-17 & Ex.R-18 tender notification of the sold plots thrown some lights on this point, on perusal of these two documents which clearly establishes the fact that the said sale was an auction sale, in support of this view, we have noted the admission in clear terms by the complainant in his legal notice at Ex.P-4, on Page No-1 & 2 of Ex.P-4 the complainant stated in un eqvi vocal terms as it was public auction sale and complainant participated in auction bid, sale bid was confirmed and sale deed was executed in his favour. So in view of the above facts and circumstances now the complainant cannot claim that the sale was by negotiation in between him with opposite No-1, as such it is very much clear the facts pleaded by opposite No-1 in his written version as it was sale of negotiation goes against to its documents. Hence the sale was auction sale and in view of the principles of the ruling reported in AIR 2009 SC 1607, this Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any kind of grievance by the purchaser under C.P. Act of 1986, as such we have not convinced with the submission of the learned advocate for complainant in this regard and thereby we rejected the said contention and followed the principles of ruling of the Honble Supreme Court and came to a conclusion that the present complainant is not a consumer and opposite No-1 is not a service provider or trader within the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d). 13. Another point for our consideration is that the plot bearing No. 154 to 158 sold by opposite No-1 under registered sale deed dt. 18-06-07 vide document at Ex.P-1 were not the saleable plots by the opposite No-1 and opposite No-1 had no saleable rights over the said plots and thereby it is sold those plots to complainant by receiving huge consideration amount and thereby there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-1. In support of this contention the learned advocate for complainant relied on following rulings:- (1) AIR 1994 Supreme Court 787 Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M.K. Gupta it was a case decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the appeal side from the judgment of the Honble National Commission, New Delhi. (2) IV (2008) CPJ 114 (NC) State Bank of Patiala V/s. Birbal Ram & Another (3) 1996 STPL (CL) 695 (NC) simplicity projects Private Ltd., V/s. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., and (4) 2006 STPL (CL) 1012 (NC) Ushal Rani Agarwal & Others V/s. Nagara Palika Parishd Haldawani. Keeping in view of the principles of the rulings referred above, we have to see the case of respective parties. 14. Admittedly complainant purchased the plot bearing Nos. 154 to 158 under registered sale deed at Ex.P-1, recitals of it shows that he took possession of plot bearing Nos. 154 to 158, thereafter he got mutated his name in TMC of opposite No-2. Ex.R-9 possession certificate shows that opposite No-1 KSFC handed over the possession of the said plots to the complainant on 27-04-07, complainant also accepted and taken possession of those plots on that date itself. This possession certificate Ex.R-9 is undisputed document, in view of the facts and in pursuance of sale deed at Ex.P-1 annexed with map at Ex.P-1(1) complainant took possession of the said plots vide Ex.R-9. 15. The main contention of the complainant is that Town Planning has approved by noting that plot bearing Nos. 154 to 158 kept exclusively for formation of park vide Ex.P-7(1) in the year 2000-01, as such opposite No-1 was not having saleable right over the plots, hence the sale deed came into existence with defective titles and thereby it is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-1. The contention of opposite No-1 is that as per the proceedings U/sec. 29 of the KSFC Act, it acquired titles to plots vide documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8, there was a approved plan and it was made publicly known at the time of issuing notification for public auction and it was purchased by the complainant by inspecting all the records, possession was handed over, hence there was no deficiency in service on its part. 16. The ruling cited at Sl.No-1 above says as C.P. Act is a social benefit oriented legislation _ Provisions should therefore be construed in favour of consumer and it dictates the meaning interpretation of statutes, it was a case in respect of non delivery of the possession of the property by the statutory properties. The second ruling cited above is of the Honble National Commission, in that case advertisement of auction was mis leading, the house put under auction was mortgaged to the bank, therefore possession was not delivered, in such circumstances their lordships of the Honble National Commission held deficiency in service on the part of the bank. 17. In the third ruling, a case was dealt by their lordships of the Honble National Commission with regard to non cleaning septic tank even though a payment of Rs. 200/- was paid to the TMC. 18. In the instant case sale deed was executed by opposite No-1 and possession of plots were handed over to the complainant vide Ex.P-1 in the year 2007, now the complainant is claiming that there was a defective title due to order of the Town Planning Authority vide Ex.P-7(1) of the year 2000-01, according to him there was a defective title for non disclosure of reservation of plots park required 154 to 158 for garden purpose, we are of the view that the principles of the ruling reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1607 aptly applicable to the facts of the present case on hand, any grievances namely defective title and possession of the sites by the purchaser under public auction cannot be questioned before the Consumer Forum. Apart from it, there is nothing required to be done of opposite No-1 as it clearly handed over the possession of plots to complainant, as such we rejected all other contentions of the complainant and we convinced from the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite No-1 as KSFC not committed any deficiency in its service and no service is required to be performed by it as defined U/sec. 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. 19. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in the light of the observations made in the ruling cited at Sl.No-4 by the Honble National Commission, we are of the view that effecting mutation by opposite No-2 on the request of the complainant by taking requisite fee of Rs. 800/- is not amounting to deficiency in its service, even though opposite No-2 is ready to pay mutation charges to complainant, accordingly we rejected this contention of the learned advocate for complainant and we answered Point No-1 in negative. 20. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos.1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 21. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite No-1 & 2 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 17-12-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Amaresh against Opposites 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to pay an amount of Rs. 5,79,926/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, opposite No-1 has issued notification for sale of plot bearing Nos. 150 to 152 and 154 to 158 in Sy.No. 961 hissa B of Sindhanur village. The complainant purchased the plots for total value of Rs. 5,00,000/- and got executed registered sale deed dt. 18-06-07 from opposite No-1, he filed an application before opposite No-2 by paying an amount of Rs. 800/- towards mutation fees, his name was mutated in the Municipal records. Thereafter it was noticed by him that in the year 2000-01 itself, plots bearing Sy.No. 154 to 158 were not open plots but those area was earmarked by the Town Planning Authority as park (garden) area, he enquired the matter with opposite No-1 but it not in properly answered with only one contention that they have acquired the above plots U/sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act of 1951 from defaulter owners. Prior to the sale there were defective title in respect of the plot bearing Sy.Nos. 154 to 158, hence it was not a sale in the eyes of law and opposite No-1 liable to refund the consideration amount. Opposite No-2 illegally mutated his name to the said plots without verifying the records and thereby both the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services, accordingly he filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in it. 3. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their respective Advocates and filed written versions. The brief facts of the written version of opposite No-1 are that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, it is barred by limitation it is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. The allegations made by the complainant against it are specifically denied, plot bearing No. 154 to 158 of Sy.No. 961 hissa B of Sindhanur village acquired by it as per the proceedings U/sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act of 1951, it was made publicly known by issuing notification complainant inspected all the records and physically verified the plots. It is denied that those plots were ear marked for the purposes of park in the year 2000-01. It might have modified by the concerned authorities in collusion with defaulter of the known complainant, verified the map existing on the date of the sale and purchase by registered sale deed annexed with the above map. Hence there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. The brief facts of the written version of opposite No-2 are that, the ear-marking of plots Nos. 154 to 158 for the purposes of park was noticed at the time of removal of encroachment as per the direction of the Honble High Court, there was no suppression of any material facts as alleged by the complainant Town Planning Authority have modified the lay out and approved it, as per the rules and regulations and as per the modification plan TMC adopted modified layout. There is no deficiency in service on its part, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grunds. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite No-1 KSFC sold plot bearing Nos. 154 to 158 carved out of Sy.No. 961 Hissa B of Sindhanur village for valuable consideration by suppressing the fact that those plots were ear marked for the purposes of park by the Town Planning Authority in the year 2000-01 and it had no saleable right over the said plots and handed over the possession of it and thereby valid title and possession of said plots not transferred to him thereafter it shows its negligence in rectifying the defects, opposite No-2 TMC Sindhanur mutated his name illegally, even though it has got knowledge of keeping those sides for parking purposes, it shows its negligence in mutating his name and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8, Ex.P-7(1) are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Branch Manager of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-18 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of the Municipal Commissioner of opposite No-2 TMC Sindhanur was filed, he was noted as RW-2. No documents filed and marked on its behalf. 8. On perusal of the pleadings of the complainant, opposite No-1 & 2 and their respective affidavit-evidences and documents filed by respective parties, we are of the view that the following facts are undisputed facts between the parties: 1. It is a fact that the complainant Amaresh purchased plot bearing Nos. 154 to 158 along with other plots, carved out of Sy.No. 961 of Hissa B of Sindhanur village from opposite No-1 KSFC for consideration amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- under registered sale deed dt. 18-06-07 by registered sale deed Ex.P-1 annexed with map at Ex.P-1(1). 2. It is undisputed fact that the complainant put into possession of said plots bearing Nos. 154 to 158 by opposite No-1 in pursuance of the sale deed Ex.P-1, its recitals on Page No-3 complainant clearly admitted of taking of possession of plot Nos. 154 to 158 from opposite No-1 and documents Ex.R-9 wherein complainant admitted in writing regarding the receipt of the possession of those plots from opposite No-1. 3. It is further undisputed fact that the complainant got mutated the plots bearing Nos. 154 to 158 by paying fees of Rs. 800/- in opposite No-2s TMC office in pursuance of the sale deed and his name was mutated vide mutation order Ex.P-3 in the office of opposite No-2, thereafter he paid taxes to the said properties vide Tax Receipt at Ex.P-3(1). 9. In the light of these undisputed facts between the parties, now we have to appreciate the case of respective parties: First point for our consideration is whether, sale of plots bearing Nos. 154 to 158 by the opposite No-1 was of public auction sale as contended by learned advocate for opposite No-1 or as to whether it was a sale to the complainant under negotiation in between opposite No-1 and complainant, if it is not an auction sale as submitted by the learned advocate for complainant, then the complainant is a consumer and his complaint before this Forum is maintainable within the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. If it is a public auction sale, then he is not a consumer within the meaning and definition of 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act and his complaint before the Consumer Forum in respect of the alleged grievances of auction sale is not maintainable. 10. The learned advocate for opposite No-1 mainly contended that the complainant is not a consumer, opposite No-1 is not a trader or service provider as the subject matter of this complaint is in respect of public auction sale, he relied on the ruling reported in AIR 2009 SC 1607 UT Chandigarh Administration and Another V/s. Amarjeet Singh and Another in which their lords ships held as (a) Consumer Protection Act-1986_Complaint__jurisdiction to entertain__public Auction of existing sites__ purchaser/lessee is not a consumer__owner is not the trader or service provider__Any grievance of purchaser/lessee__would not give rise to complainant or consumer dispute__Fora under the Act cannot entertain or decide any complaint of purchaser or decide any complaint by purchaser/lessee against owner of sites. 11. In pursuance of the submissions made on both sides and in view of the principles of the ruling referred by the learned advocate for opposite No-1, we have to appreciate the case of each parties to see as to whether the said sale was a public auction sale or it was a sale by negotiation between the complainant and opposites. 12. In this regard documents Ex.R-17 & Ex.R-18 tender notification of the sold plots thrown some lights on this point, on perusal of these two documents which clearly establishes the fact that the said sale was an auction sale, in support of this view, we have noted the admission in clear terms by the complainant in his legal notice at Ex.P-4, on Page No-1 & 2 of Ex.P-4 the complainant stated in un eqvi vocal terms as it was public auction sale and complainant participated in auction bid, sale bid was confirmed and sale deed was executed in his favour. So in view of the above facts and circumstances now the complainant cannot claim that the sale was by negotiation in between him with opposite No-1, as such it is very much clear the facts pleaded by opposite No-1 in his written version as it was sale of negotiation goes against to its documents. Hence the sale was auction sale and in view of the principles of the ruling reported in AIR 2009 SC 1607, this Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any kind of grievance by the purchaser under C.P. Act of 1986, as such we have not convinced with the submission of the learned advocate for complainant in this regard and thereby we rejected the said contention and followed the principles of ruling of the Honble Supreme Court and came to a conclusion that the present complainant is not a consumer and opposite No-1 is not a service provider or trader within the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d). 13. Another point for our consideration is that the plot bearing No. 154 to 158 sold by opposite No-1 under registered sale deed dt. 18-06-07 vide document at Ex.P-1 were not the saleable plots by the opposite No-1 and opposite No-1 had no saleable rights over the said plots and thereby it is sold those plots to complainant by receiving huge consideration amount and thereby there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-1. In support of this contention the learned advocate for complainant relied on following rulings:- (1) AIR 1994 Supreme Court 787 Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M.K. Gupta it was a case decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the appeal side from the judgment of the Honble National Commission, New Delhi. (2) IV (2008) CPJ 114 (NC) State Bank of Patiala V/s. Birbal Ram & Another (3) 1996 STPL (CL) 695 (NC) simplicity projects Private Ltd., V/s. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., and (4) 2006 STPL (CL) 1012 (NC) Ushal Rani Agarwal & Others V/s. Nagara Palika Parishd Haldawani. Keeping in view of the principles of the rulings referred above, we have to see the case of respective parties. 14. Admittedly complainant purchased the plot bearing Nos. 154 to 158 under registered sale deed at Ex.P-1, recitals of it shows that he took possession of plot bearing Nos. 154 to 158, thereafter he got mutated his name in TMC of opposite No-2. Ex.R-9 possession certificate shows that opposite No-1 KSFC handed over the possession of the said plots to the complainant on 27-04-07, complainant also accepted and taken possession of those plots on that date itself. This possession certificate Ex.R-9 is undisputed document, in view of the facts and in pursuance of sale deed at Ex.P-1 annexed with map at Ex.P-1(1) complainant took possession of the said plots vide Ex.R-9. 15. The main contention of the complainant is that Town Planning has approved by noting that plot bearing Nos. 154 to 158 kept exclusively for formation of park vide Ex.P-7(1) in the year 2000-01, as such opposite No-1 was not having saleable right over the plots, hence the sale deed came into existence with defective titles and thereby it is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-1. The contention of opposite No-1 is that as per the proceedings U/sec. 29 of the KSFC Act, it acquired titles to plots vide documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8, there was a approved plan and it was made publicly known at the time of issuing notification for public auction and it was purchased by the complainant by inspecting all the records, possession was handed over, hence there was no deficiency in service on its part. 16. The ruling cited at Sl.No-1 above says as C.P. Act is a social benefit oriented legislation _ Provisions should therefore be construed in favour of consumer and it dictates the meaning interpretation of statutes, it was a case in respect of non delivery of the possession of the property by the statutory properties. The second ruling cited above is of the Honble National Commission, in that case advertisement of auction was mis leading, the house put under auction was mortgaged to the bank, therefore possession was not delivered, in such circumstances their lordships of the Honble National Commission held deficiency in service on the part of the bank. 17. In the third ruling, a case was dealt by their lordships of the Honble National Commission with regard to non cleaning septic tank even though a payment of Rs. 200/- was paid to the TMC. 18. In the instant case sale deed was executed by opposite No-1 and possession of plots were handed over to the complainant vide Ex.P-1 in the year 2007, now the complainant is claiming that there was a defective title due to order of the Town Planning Authority vide Ex.P-7(1) of the year 2000-01, according to him there was a defective title for non disclosure of reservation of plots park required 154 to 158 for garden purpose, we are of the view that the principles of the ruling reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1607 aptly applicable to the facts of the present case on hand, any grievances namely defective title and possession of the sites by the purchaser under public auction cannot be questioned before the Consumer Forum. Apart from it, there is nothing required to be done of opposite No-1 as it clearly handed over the possession of plots to complainant, as such we rejected all other contentions of the complainant and we convinced from the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite No-1 as KSFC not committed any deficiency in its service and no service is required to be performed by it as defined U/sec. 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. 19. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in the light of the observations made in the ruling cited at Sl.No-4 by the Honble National Commission, we are of the view that effecting mutation by opposite No-2 on the request of the complainant by taking requisite fee of Rs. 800/- is not amounting to deficiency in its service, even though opposite No-2 is ready to pay mutation charges to complainant, accordingly we rejected this contention of the learned advocate for complainant and we answered Point No-1 in negative. 20. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos.1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 21. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite No-1 & 2 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 17-12-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.