Karnataka

Kolar

CC/35/2019

Sri.V.Krishnamurthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri.N.J.Srikumar - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.R.Raghupathi Gowda

28 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 28^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 35 OF 2019

Sri. V. Krishnamurthy,

S/o. Vekataramanappa,

Aged About 45 Years,

R/at: Opp. Ponnamma Hotel,

Doddapete, Kolar City, Kolar.                                    ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. R. Raghupathi Gowda, Advocate)

 

- V/s –

Sri. N.J. Srikumar,

S/o. R.N. Jayaprakash,

Aged About 32 Years,

R/at House No.1319,

Balajigara Beedhi, Kataripalya,

Kolar City, Kolar.                                                                     …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

ORDER ON MAINTAINABILITY

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint against OP and prays to direct the OP to return a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony, and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, the complainant is the lease holder and the OP is the owner of the house property bearing No. 1319, measuring East-West 35 feet and North-South 14 feet, situated at Kataripalya, Kolar City, Kolar.  The OP has executed House Lease Agreement dated: 07.06.2017 for three years as per the Lease Agreement.  The OP has received a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- from the complainant with respect to the said leased house property and delivered the house to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the said Lease Agreement. 

(a)    The OP within three years has intimated the complainant to vacate the house for his own use and the complainant asked to return the lease amount as per the said Lease Agreement.  The OP has written the shara on the said Lease Agreement stating that, a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was received as advance to the house and the remaining amount is payable after vacating the house.  The complainant has received the said amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and the complainant has to vacate the house and hand-over the possession and key to the OP.  The complainant approached OP to return the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as per the shara, but OP has taken some time to arrange the said amount.  The complainant made several requests and demands, the OP has not returned the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- till today. 

(b)    The complainant issued legal notice dated: 16.03.2019 to the OP requesting the OP to return the balance amount pertaining to the Lease Agreement.  On 08.04.2019 the OP has given false reply to the said notice by denying all the averments and filed this Consumer Complaint for the above said reliefs.

03.   Heard arguments of the counsel for the complainant on admission of the Consumer Complaint.

04.   On perusal of the above said contention of the complainant it reveals about the nature of Civil Litigation with respect to house Lease Agreement between the Land Lord/OP and the complainant/lease holder with respect to the alleged house bearing No. 1319, measuring East-West 35 feet and North-South 14 feet, situated at Kataripalya, Kolar City, Kolar, for Rs.3,75,000/- for three years.  As per the said Lease Agreement a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- is taken as advance amount and the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be payable on expiry of the said lease agreement.  The OP asked the complainant to vacate the house for his own use, but the OP did not pay the remaining amount in spite of repeated requests and reminders and so also issuing of legal notice.  The said dispute is not a Consumer Dispute and there is no any kind of deficiency of service.  The complainant has produced the Lease Agreement but the said Lease Agreement dated: 07.06.2017 does not reveals about any service to the Lease Holder/complainant by the Land Lord/OP and the right of the leasing of the said house does not amount to rendering of any service and the said security deposit made by the complainant also does not render any service.  In this regard I relay the judgment of the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Commission reported in 1994(1) CPJ Page 333.  The principles of the said judgment is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.  The said facts as narrated by the complainant does not reveals about consumer dispute and so also the deficiency of service as contemplated Under Section 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) and 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

Section 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) reads as under:-

(d) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.

Section 2(1)(o) reads as under:-

(o) “Service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

05.   From the above said provision of law the complainant is not fitted in to within the purview of Section 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) and 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence as discussed above the complainant is not a Consumer and there is no deficiency of service as contended by the complainant and the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine.  Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.  No order as to costs.

02.   The complainant is directed to approach the competent Civil Court for his grievance. 

03.   Office is directed to return the complaint along with documents to the complainant.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 28^th DAY OF MAY 2019)

 

LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT