| Complaint Case No. CC/467/2015 |
| | | | 1. Smt.Shanthi | | S/o Late B.Muniswamy, 44 years, No.49, 4th Cross, J.C.Nagara, Chamundi Hill Road, Mysuru Nagara. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Secretary, KARP Mount Company Employees Co-operative Society and 3 others | | Lalith Mahal Road, Mysuru. | | 2. Commissioner, | | Mysuru Urban Development Authority, JLB Road, Mysuru. | | 3. Srinivasa | | S/o Madaiah, No.92, 4th Cross, Kurubarahally, Mysuru. | | 4. Lakshmamma | | W/o Mahadevanna, D.No.108, J.C.Nagara, Nazarbad Mohalla, HHMBC Employees Co-operative Society, Mysuru. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.467/2015 DATED ON THIS THE 2nd September 2016 Present: 1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT 2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi B.Sc., LLB., - MEMBER 3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C. B.E., LLB., - MEMBER COMPLAINANT/S | | : | Smt.Shanthi, S/o Late B.Muniswamy, D.No.49, 4th Cross, J.C.Nagara, Chamundi Hills Road, Mysuru Nagara. (Sri Somanth.S, Adv.) | | | | | | V/S | OPPOSITE PARTY/S | | : | - Secretary/President, KARP Mount Company Employees Co-operative Society, Lalith Mahal Road, Mysuru.
- Commissioner, Mysuru Urban Development Authority, JLB Road, Mysuru.
- Srinivasa, S/o Madaiah, D.No.92, 4th Cross, Kurubarahally, Mysuru.
- Lakshammamma, W/o Mahadevanna, D.No.108, J.C.Nagara, Nazarbad Mohalla, H.H.M.B.C Employees Co-operative Society, Mysuru.
(O.P.1 and 3 – Exparte, O.P.2, R.H.A., Adv. and O.P.4 – O.S.B., Adv.) | Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service | | Date of filing of complaint | : | 26.06.2015 | | Date of Issue notice | : | 04.07.2015 | | Date of order | : | 02.09.2015 | | Duration of Proceeding | : | 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS 6 DAYS | | | | | | | | | | |
Sri Devakumar.M.C. Member - The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to issue title deed/sale deed and to collect the tax duly transferring the khata in favour of herself and her sister and to pay compensation for the mental agony with cost and other reliefs.
- The complainant aggrieved by non-issuance of the title deed/sale deed in respect of the complaint schedule property alleging the deficiency in service has filed the complaint, seeking reliefs.
- Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 remained absent, hence placed exparte. Version of opposite party No.2 not filed.
- Opposite party No.4 in her version submits that, the complaint is not maintainable against her, as the reliefs sought is against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 only. She also submits that, the complainant had filed a suit in respect of the complaint schedule property before civil court, which came to be dismissed on 17.12.2013. Subsequently, the present complaint has been filed with frivolous allegations of deficiency in service to make wrongful gain only. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint against her.
- In order to establish the facts, the complainant filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence and placed several documents. Opposite party No.4 filed her affidavit. Complainant and opposite party No.4 filed written arguments and heard the oral arguments of respective counsels. Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
- The points arose for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not issuing the title deed/sale deed in respect of the complaint schedule property and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs?
- What order?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- In the negative. Point No.2 :- Does not call for discussion. Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following :: R E A S O N S :: - Point No.1:- The complainant has filed the complaint, alleging the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1, for non-issuance of the title deed/sale deed and other relevant documents and for not transferring the khata records in her favour by opposite party No.2, in respect of the complaint schedule property and sought for the reliefs.
- Admittedly, the complainant has already filed a suit before the Hon’ble 4th Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dv.) at Mysuru, in O.S.No.1964/2011, on 28.11.2011 for partition and separate possession, which came to be dismissed on 17.12.2013, as she failed to establish the complaint schedule property as her ancestral property by placing the relevant documents. Further, the complainant, her mother and her sister have sold a portion of the complaint schedule property in favour of husband of opposite party No.4 in the year 1995, this fact has been suppressed by the complainant and filed this complaint. As such, the complaint is barred by limitation under section 24(A) of the C.P.Act and hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
- Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, this point does not survive for consideration.
- Point No.3:- With the above observations, we proceed to pass the following
:: O R D E R :: - The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
(D | |
