BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF JULY 2021

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                        MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 14/2021

V/s

ORDER ON ADMISSION

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER

1.      The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.10.12.2020 passed in CC.No.133/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya.

2.      The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that he is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.129/6 measuring 0.33 guntas situated at Keerlara Village, Keregodu Hobli, Mandya.  The complainant acquired right, title, interest and authority over the aforesaid property by virtue of registered Gift Deed dt.13.05.2011 executed by his mother out of her free consent, will and volition, registered as document No.MDY-1-01332-2011-12 stored in CD No.MDYD115 of Book No.1 registered Gift Deed mutation has been accepted vide MR No.79/2010-11.  Unfortunately complainant’s mother namely Siddamma died on 17.05.2011.  The complainant contacted Field Assistant/Supervisor of the respondent informed the death of his mother and requested to change permit to his name, in the meantime they advised that even after supply of sugarcane permit can be changed and there is no legal embargo, based on his advice, in the month of March 2012 the complainant had supplied 12.920 ton sugarcane to the Opposite Party, they have received the sugarcane and towards the said supply of the sugarcane an amount of Rs.24,174/- has been calculated and had not been transferred to the complainant’s account.  Thereafter on several occasions the complainant contacted the Opposite Party and demanded to pay the aforesaid amount towards supply of sugarcane, the Opposite Party by assigning one or the other reasons prolonging and protracting to pay the same.

3.      The Opposite Party informed the complainant to furnish the documents pertains to transfer of permit to his name, viz., death certificate, genealogical tree, family members details, ration card, Aadhar card, affidavit, surety affidavit, bank account extract and etc., based on the advice of the Opposite Party the complainant had executed indemnity bond, surety indemnity bond and furnished other required documents and requested the Opposite Party to transfer the amount.  Thereafter on 04.12.2017 the Opposite Party made office note that, based on the documents furnished by the complainant an amount of Rs.24,174/- could be transferred in the name of complainant and requisition made to the higher authority to accord permission.  Though, they have made note and finalized to disburse the amount in favour of the complainant.  On 23.06.2018 the complainant got issued legal notice through his advocate to the Opposite Party and demanded to pay the aforesaid amount.  Despite of service of notice and demand, the Opposite Party neither paid the aforesaid amount nor issued the reply notice.  Hence, the complaint.

4.      The Opposite Party appeared through their counsel and filed objections to the complaint.  The fact remains that the Opposite Party admitted the permit LF.No.512097 supply of sugarcane and non-payment of amount towards supply of sugarcane.  They have taken vague contention that the other legal heirs of deceased Siddamma should have consented for payment of amount and the Opposite Party sought for dismissal of complaint.

5.      After trial, the District Commission closed the complaint as not maintainable.

6.      Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ complainant is in appeal.  Heard the arguments.

7.      Perused the memorandum of appeal and Order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the District Commission dismissed the complaint at the time of admission as not maintainable because as per the finding of District Commission, the dispute issued involves the succession of property and its right and also its benefits and other related civil rights and these rights cannot be a subject matter of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Moreover, the law does not empower the Commission with the jurisdiction to decide the legal and succession and civil rights of the parties involved.  The issue and dispute between the parties appears to be an issue which involves mixed question of law and facts.  We agreed the law does not empower the Commission with jurisdiction to decide the legal and succession and civil rights involved.  But, on which basis the District Commission decided that there is a mixed question of law and facts?  The complainant based on the advise of the Opposite Party had executed indemnity surety bond and other documents to the Opposite Party.  Moreover, the complainant is the owner and peaceful possession and enjoyment of agricultural land bearing Surevey No.129/6 measuring 0.33 guntas i.e. less than one acre and also registered Gift Deed dt.13.05.2011 executed by the complainant’s mother late Smt. Siddamma in its favour and the Opposite Party also admitted the permit LF.No.512097, supply of sugarcane and non-payment of amount towards supply of sugarcane.  The Opposite Party contended in lower court that they are ready and willing to make payment to the legal heir and late Smt. Siddamma.  Anyhow on 13.05.2011 itself registered Gift Deed has been executed in favour of the complainant, the right, title, interest and authority of the property has been transferred in favour of the complainant.  Pursuant to the Registered Gift Deed and RTC, the account and permit has been transferred in the name of the complainant by the Opposite Party.  Then there is no question arises to furnish the consent letter and other legal heirs of late Smt. Siddamma or make any payment to the legal heirs of late Smt. Siddamma as the complainant is the absolute owner of the property.  Moreover, the Gift Deed dt.13.05.2011 had not been challenged or questioned by any other family members of the complainant in any other court.  None of the family members have filed any objection to the payment of amount to the complainant before Opposite Party.  In this case only issue involves towards non-payment of amount pertains to the supply of sugarcane.  This type of tendency to resist even the smallest of claims on any ground by exploiting the greater capacity of this type of companies to litigate for long period of time amounts to harassment of poor agriculturists.  Hence, in our opinion, there is no any issue involved mixed question of law and facts.  Hence, the complaint is maintainable.  After consideration of facts, we are of the opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the matter is remanded back to the District Commission to dispose-off it on merits.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is disposed-off.

The Order dt.10.12.2020 passed in CC.No.133/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission to decide on merits.

Forward free copies to both parties.

Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER                                          JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*