Kerala

StateCommission

A/09/513

R.S.Radhakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sabu Kurian - Opp.Party(s)

George Cherian Karippaparambil

10 Nov 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/09/513

(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/04/2009 in Case No. CC 181/08 of District Idukki)

1. R.S.Radhakrishnan

Kerala

...........Appellant(s)

Versus

1. Sabu Kurian

Kerala

...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.513/09

JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER

Mr.R.S.Anishmon,

S/0 V.V.Soman, -- APPELLANT

Radhalayam House,

Kattappana.P.O. PIN-685 508.

(By Adv.George Cherian Karippaparambil & Ors.)

Vs.

1. Mr.Sabu Kurian

Kandathinkara House,

Vellayamkudy.P.O.

PIN – 685 515.

2. Gogi Varghese, -- RESPONDENTS

Kalappurackal House,

Vazhavara.P.O,

Nirmala City.

3. Mr.T.V.Soman,

Thettayil House,

Kattappana.P.O,

PIN – 685 508.

(By Adv.Sasthamangalam R.Jayakrishnan)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU-- PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party in CC.181/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs.

2. The case of the complainants is that they had agreed to purchase 1 acre and 70 cents of land from one Roymon, son of Kavalkkattu Joseph, and for the same a survey plan was got prepared by the opposite party on payment of Rs.1500/-. Out of 1acre and 70 cents agreed to be purchased by the complainants, 20 cents were sold to one Gigi Palathinal and the balance would be 1 acre and 50 for which also measurements were taken by the opposite party. But, at the time the opposite party has prepared the plan wherein the extent is mentioned as 1 acre and 43 cents only. He has stated that the first survey plan is incorrect, and that the total extent would work out to only 1 acre and 63 cents. It is alleged that the complainants have sustained loss. In 2006, when the first survey plan was prepared the value of land was Rs.1,000/- per cent only whereas in 2008 the value was increased to Rs.3,000/- per cent. Hence, the complainants have sustained a loss of Rs.21,000/-. The complainants have paid the price for 1 acre and 70 cents to Roymon. It is alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and has sought for a compensation of Rs.21,0000/- with interest at 18% and also Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

3. On the other hand, the opposite party/appellant has denied that he received any amount from the complainants. He had prepared the survey plan at the instance of Joseph Kavalkattu, the father of Roymon. According to him, he had sought for preparing a plan excluding the area cultivated with Cardamom in RS.44/1 extending 79 are and 20 sq.mtr (1.95 acres). Accordingly, such a plan was prepared. Re-survey records were not relied. He has received Rs.1500/- from the above Joseph excluding the area cultivated with Cardamom. Thus, the rest of the property extended 1.70 acres. Out of the same, the above Joseph have sold 20 cents to Palathinal Gigy. It is seen that subsequently in September 2007, the complainants have purchased 1.27 cents from Roymon, son of Joseph. The opposite party has prepared a plan for the same. Rest of the allegations are denied. It is also mentioned that on 10.9.07, 1 acre and 7 cents are seen purchased by the complainants 1 and 2 and 20 cents by the third complainant. It is mentioned that on 10.9.07, at the time of sale a road of 12 feet in width from South to North has been made through the property. It is also mentioned that the complainants 1 and 2 have paid Rs.1,40,000/- for one acre and 70 cents and the third opposite party has paid Rs.30,000/- for 20 cents. Hence, the case is that they have sustained a loss at the tune of Rs.3,000/- per cent is false.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 and R1.

5. Ext.P1 is the survey plan wherein the name of the first complainant is mentioned at the top and the name and address and signature of the opposite party at the bottom. It was relying on the above endorsements in Ext.P1 plan that the Forum held that the plan has been prepared by the opposite party at the instance of the first complainant. The opposite party also did not testify. In the above circumstances, the Forum has held that loss has been occasioned to the complainants to the extent of the value of 7 cents and the above was ordered to be paid by the opposite party.

6. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, we find that the complainants have no case that the property extending 1 acre and 70 cents existed as per the title deed. It is mentioned that the above extent is in possession (virivum koodiya sthalam). No tax receipts or other documents supporting the case of ownership on the part of the assignor has been produced although, it is mentioned that the consideration for 1 acre and 70 cents has been paid neither the agreement nor the receipt of payment has been produced. It was also found that as per Ext.R1, the complainants have assigned 7 cents back to the assignor. According to the counsel for the respondents/complainants, the 7 cents were reassigned as the property is not in existence. The above explanation appears intriguing. As mentioned in the version the value of the property would work out to less than Rs.1500/- as per cent. As per the copies of the assignment deeds produced we find that complainants have purchased only 1 acre and 27 cents. Further 20 cents were sold to one Gigy said to be at the instance of the complainants. The original land owner/assigner Mr.Roymon was not examined. It has also to be noted that the second survey plan allegedly prepared subsequently was also not produced.

7. In the circumstances, we find that it stands not established that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the order of the Forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

The office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.