CC Filed on 12.04.2011
Disposed on 16.06.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 16th day of June 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 123/2011
Between:
Sri. K. Sathyanarayana, S/o. K.P. Krishnanayak, Aged 35 years, MurandahalliVillage, Kolar Taluk. V/S 1. Sri. Obanayak, Molakalmuru Taluk, Panchayat Office, Molakalmuru, Chitradurga District. 2. Smt. H.J. Vijay Kumari, W/o. Obanayak, Aged 48 years, Vivekananda Road, Opp. SSI Old Gate, Saraswathipuram, Tumkur, Tumkur District. 3. Kumari. Kumada Priyadarshni, D/o. Obanayak, Vivekananda Road, Opp. SSI Old Gate, Saraswathipuram, Tumkur, Tumkur District. | ….Complainant |
4. Kumari. Kruthika, D/o. Obanayak, Vivekananda Road, Opp. SSI Old Gate, Saraswathipuram, Tumkur, Tumkur District. (By Advocate for OP.2 to 4 Sri. M. Narayan & others ) | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to execute the regular sale deed in respect of the property described in the complaint and if for any reason they could not execute the sale deed to return Rs.2,00,000/- received by them to complainant with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of agreement for sale and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, etc.,
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant obtained an agreement for sale dated 13.08.2008 executed by OP.2 and OP.3 for Rs.3,50,000/- in respect of a site bearing No. 850 described in the complaint, which is situated at Block No.2 of Kolar Town Development Authority, Kolar. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to OP.2 and OP.3 on 13.08.2008 itself and subsequently a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on 19.08.2008. Further it is alleged that OP No.3 and 4 received Rs.50,000/- on 12.09.2008 and executed the second agreement for sale in respect of the same site.
The complainant states in his complaint that the said site is standing in the name of OP.1 who is the husband of OP.2 and father of OP.3 and OP.4 and that he was misrepresented by OP.2 and OP.3 regarding the title of the property and that OP.2 had assured that she would persuade her husband OP.1 to execute the regular sale deed in favour of complainant as per the sale agreements executed by her. The complainant has further alleged that OP.2 and 3 are not willing to keep up their words and failed to bring the sale deed in existence. Therefore the present complaint is filed.
3. In response to the Notice OP.2 to 4 appeared and filed version. They admitted that OP.1 is the husband of OP.2 and father of OP.3 and 4. They denied all other averments. They contended that the complainant has forged the signatures and concocted the agreements for sale. They denied for having received any amount from complainant as part payment for sale of the site. They contended that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
4. The OP.1 remained absent. The notice issued to him under RPAD or the acknowledgement of service did not return. The service of notice on OP.1 is taken as sufficient. He did not file any version.
5. The Learned Counsel for complainant submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the property in question is admittedly not standing in the name of OP No.2 and 3 and that OP.1 is not a party to the agreement for sale in whose name the site stands as per the averment in the complaint. His contention appears to be correct. The complainant cannot be treated as a ‘Consumer’ in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 16th day of June 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
