THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

I.A.167/2016 IN C.C.427/2014

Dated this the 14^th  day of October, 2016

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.              :  President)

                                                                        Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                    :  Member

                                                                       Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B.     :  Member

ORDER

Present: Rose Jose, President:

            This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            Petitioner’s case is that, as per the title deed No. 1644/2000 he was the owner of 28 ¼ cents of landed property and a shed No. KPXI/210 situated therein. During the period 1998-99 this property was in the name of the 3^rd opposite party and hence for demolishing the said shed and for constructing a new building; application was submitted before the Punchayat by the 3^rd opposite party. After transferring the ownership and possession of the said property to his name, the said shed has been demolished and a new building constructed there and the Panchayat had allotted No. KPXI/210A to that building. Thereafter a new house and shop has been constructed in that property having No. KPXI/21013 and XI/210C. It is alleged by the petitioner that the 3^rd opposite party in collusion with the 2^nd opposite party had illegally obtained an ownership certificate of the demolished building No. XI/210 and with this illegal certificate issued by the 1^st opposite party, 3^rd opposite party obtained a ration card. Petitioner further averred that with this illegal certificate the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are torturing him mentally and physically in many ways. As a result, he was forced to dispose his property for a meager amount and thereby sustained huge financial loss. Moreover, at present he is residing in a rented house and he was forced to conduct the marriage of his son in that rented house and due to this he has to spend near about 2 lakhs rupees unnecessarily.

            The petitioner alleged that though he had made many a number of complaints before the Panchayat and even issued lawyers notice to the 1^st opposite party requesting to cancel the said alleged ownership certificate issued by the 1^st opposite party to the 3^rd opposite party he didn’t care to cancel the same. The said act of the opposite parties is cheating and also deficiency in service on their side and this caused much mental and physical torture and a financial loss of Rs.3 lakhs to him. Hence this petition seeking reliefs.

The 1^st opposite party filed version with the following contentions. As per the assessment register kept in the Panchayat, KPXI/210 number shed and the disputed property was in the name of the 3^rd opposite party. As such, they have granted permission for constructing a new building there as per Order No. BL191/98-99 dated 11/01/1998 to the 3^rd opposite party. The newly constructed building No. KPXI/210A was registered in the name of the petitioner at this assessment register. Now the said building is under the ownership of Moideenkutty and Mariam and 3^rd opposite party is residing at building No. 11/210B which is in the possession of one Mr. Benoy Udayanath.

            It is further stated by the opposite party that the ownership certificate is issuing based on the assessment register kept at the Panchayat. It is also stated that he can’t say whether the 3^rd opposite party had obtained any ownership certificate with regard to the building No.11/210, as the file number or date was not available with them now. Building No.s 11/210 B and 11/210C were transferred to the name of the petitioner’s son and they contended that there is no deficiency in service on their side and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

            The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties also filed version denying all the allegations put forth against them by the petitioner as false and frivolous, with prayers to dismiss the petition with cost them. After filing affidavit by the petitioner the 1^st opposite party filed an I.A.167/2016 challenging the maintainability of this petition before this Forum.

            In the I.A. opposite party stated that they are not charging any amount from the applicant for issuing ownership certificate and hence their service will not came under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and so the petitioner is not a consumer of them and hence this petition is not maintainable before this Forum. The petitioner filed objection to this I.A.

            But a reading of the petition would show that the dispute is with regard to the transfer of property, building, illegal issuance of ration card and other related matters. So the petition is of a Civil nature. It needs elaborate evidence and perusal of many documents to come to a final decision. The Consumer Protection Act permits only summary trial and hence we are of the view that this petition is not maintainable before this Forum.

            In the result, I.A.167/2016 is allowed and the original petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a suit before the Civil Court, if he prefers so.                 

Dated this the 14^th  day of  October, 2016

Date of filing: 28/08/2014

SD/-MEMBER                             SD/-  PRESIDENT                      SD/- MEMBER

 (Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT