BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 05/04/2008
Date of Order : 27/08/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 99/2008
Between
1. P.V. Surendran, | :: | Complainants |
Pettathanam House, H. No. X 646 J, Santhi Nagar, Kureekkad. P.O., Ernakulam. 2. P.K. Vijayakumari, W/o. P.V. Surendran, H. No. X 646 J, Santhi Nagar, Kureekkad. P.O., Ernakulam. 3. Sundarapandian. P.S., S/o. Late P.V. Surendran, H. No. X 646 J, Santhi Nagar, Kureekkad. P.O., Ernakulam. 4. Jeevakumari .P.S., D/o. Late P.V. Surendran, H. No. X 646 J, Santhi Nagar, Kureekkad. P.O., Ernakulam. |
| (Compts. by Adv. George Cherian, Karippaparambil Associates Advocates, H.B. 48, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin - 36) |
And
1. R. Meenakumari, | :: | Opposite Parties |
D/o. Rajappan Pillai, Kavanamthottathil House, Vyttila, Ernakulam, Now residing at Near Chakkumkulangara Devi Temple, Tripunithura. P.O., Ernakulam. 2. Rajappan Pillai, Kavanamthottathil House, Vyttila, Ernakulam. |
| (Op.pts. by Adv. N.P. Sunil & P. Jaya Advocates, Nagappadiyil, Eroor. P.O., Tripunithura – 682 306) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The summarized facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-
The opposite parties are developers and builders engaged in acquiring small plots and constructing residential villas. By sale deed No. 1253/2006 of S.R.O., Mulanthuruthy, the 1st opposite party has transferred 5.534 cents of land and a residential villa therein to the complainants on 07-04-2006. The complainants shifted their residence to the villa on 24-04-2006. The complainants noticed the developing of major defects on the building and time and again they requested the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the same. Since there was no response, the complainants caused to issue a notice to the opposite parties detailing the defects of the building and requesting them to rectify the same. On receipt of the same as well, there was no response. The complainants estimate the cost of repairs with the help of a Civil Engineer at Rs. 2 lakhs. So the complainant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs from the opposite parties together with Rs. 1,00,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :-
The opposite parties constructed a building in 5.534 cents of land of the 1st opposite party for their own. Due to financial constrains, the opposite parties decided to sell the property and the building therein. The complainants being satisfied with the construction with the help of experts purchased the property and the building from the opposite parties on 07-04-2006, vide document No. 1253/2006 of S.R.O., Mulanthuruthy. Thereafter, on 24-04-2006, the complainants started to reside in the residential building. The complainants did not raise any objection regarding the property and the building. The opposite parties have not ever agreed to rectify the defects, if any of the building at any time. The opposite parties did not receive any notice allegedly issued by the complainants. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants are not entitled to get any of the reliefs as claimed for.
3. The 2nd complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainants. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. The expert commissioner's report was marked as Ext. C1. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The questions that arose for consideration are as follows :-
Whether the complainants are consumers within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act?
Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the complainants?
Whether the complainants are entitled to get costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties?
5. Point No. i. :- Admittedly, the complainants purchased 5.534 cents of land in Kureekkadu Village Along with a residential building therein from the 1st opposite party vide sale deed No. 1253/2006 of S.R.O., Mulanthuruthy dated 24-04-2006. According to the complainants, the residential building suffer from various defects and they are entitled to get it rectified in tune with Ext. C1 the expert commissioner's report.
6. Indisputably, the relationship between the complainants and the 1st opposite party is vendee and vendor of the immovable property. Neither did the complainants availed any service from the opposite parties, nor the opposite parties provide the same. In short, there is no consumer-service provider relationship between them. In the absence of such relationship, the complainants cannot be termed as a consumer as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, nothing is on record to show the transaction as service as stated in Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. In that view of the matter, the remedy of the consumer lies elsewhere. The complainants are fully at liberty to approach the appropriate authority, if so advised. The proceedings in this complaint stands closed with a direction to the complainants to receive back the complaint and the related documents from this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in order to pursue their remedies elsewhere.
7. Point Nos. ii. & iii. :- Since the primary contention of the issue itself is against the complainants, further discussion on this matter is not warranted.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of August 2012.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the letter dt./25-03-2008 |
“ A2 | :: | Two receipts |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the sale deed |
“ C1 | :: | Commission report dt. 13-10-2011 and photographs |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
Depositions :- |
|
|
PW1 | :: | Vijayakumari. P.K. - 2nd complainant |
=========
