COMPLAINT FILED: 26-12-2008<br /> DISPOSED ON: 05-10-2009<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 5TH OCTOBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2824/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Col.(Retd) C.Medhi,<br /> 2C, M/s.Sharda Residency,<br /> BEML Hospital Road,<br /> G.M. Palya,<br /> Bangalore – 560 075.<br /> <br /> Party in Person<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri.Sukhvinder Singh,<br /> (S/o.Sri. Amarjit Singh),<br /> Managing Partner,<br /> M/s.Sharda Properties,<br /> No.41, 9th Main Indiranagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 038.<br /> <br /> Presently Residing at <br /> New Delhi – 110 027.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri.K.S.Venkatarama<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P.Act of 1986 seeking direction to Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay all outstanding dues (including penalties) of BBMP and amend the sale deed (From 1D to 1C) and facilitate the complainant in getting the transfer of khata in BBMP and to take necessary action for defrauding the sale tax department and to pay compensation for harassment caused to the complainant. <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant stated to be in brief as averred in the complaint is as under :-<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant is being an Ex-Serviceman, purchased the residential flat in M/s. Sharda Residency in G M Palaya, from one M/s. Sharda Properties on 29-07-2004. Ever since then he has been running from pillar to post to get the khata in BBMP transferred in his name, but he is not able to do so. A huge amount of tax is outstanding against the company (the builder) in BBMP which company was supposed to clear (before the sale deed was executed). The flat was numbered as ‘2D’ in the sale deed where as, as per the corporation documents there is no mention of ‘2D’ though there is a Flat Numbered as 2C in that building in the name of M/s. Sharda Properties. (In fact, the builder combined two flats (2C & 2D) together and made one ‘3-bedroom’ flat before selling the same to the complainant) OP has cheated and harassed the complainant, over and above the agreed amount of Rs.15.5 lakhs as cost of the flat, the company forced the complainant to pay additional amount of RS.22,000/- as sale tax and another Rs.7,000/- as legal and miscellaneous expenses. A receipt for Rs.22,000/- was issued on plain paper stating towards sale tax deposit the same was without a TIN number and it is doubted if that amount is ever gone to the Sale Tax Department. OP has to hand over all connected documents of the flat to the complainant. Sri.Sukhvinder Singh i.e., OP and his father, the owner of the firm M/s. Sharda Properties refused to accept the complainant’s calls, letters sent are not accepted, recently the whole family is shifted to Delhi though office cum residence in Bangalore was still occupied by their own men. The complainant purchased the property through Sri.B.S.Jaisimha of Lead Estate & Properties. Hence, the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The notice sent to the OP through register post returned unserved, then notice was taken out by the paper publication. OP inspite of service of notice through paper publication failed to appear before this forum and there was no justifiable cause for non-appearance. Hence OP placed exparte. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit to substantiate the complaint allegations, the documents are produced along with complaint. A memo was filed to treat the chief examination as written arguments.<br /> <br /> 5. After perusing the pleadings the document produced and the affidavit filed by the complainant, the following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant was a consumer and the <br /> dispute alleged is consumer dispute. <br /> <br /> 2. Whether the dispute raised can be adjudicate <br /> under the Consumer Protection Act. <br /> <br /> 3. To what order.<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings to the above points are :-<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- In Negative<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order. <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. The Xerox copy of the registered sale deed dated 29-07-2004 produced by the complainant reveals that he has purchased a flat bearing No: 2D on the 2nd floor of M/s. Sharda Residency of property bearing No:15 situated at Bysandra Village Dhakale, BEML Hospital Road, G.M.Palya, K.R.puram Hobli Bangalore for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- The said sale deed is executed by one M.Sampanhgirama Reddy and M/s.Sharda Properties represented by its Managing Partner Sri.Sukhvinder Singh i.e., OP. The relief sought in the complaint is to amend the sale deed for making the flat No.2C instead of 2D and to direct the OP to pay the entire arrears of tax due on the property to the BBMP. Op is the Managing Partner of M/s.Sharda Properties. The relief sought with regard to the rectification of the registered sale deed cannot be granted by this Forum, as the same is of civil nature. The complainant has to approach the civil court seeking appropriate reliefs for rectification of the sale deed. The complainant cannot be considered to be a ‘Consumer’ as defined under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act and the dispute regarding rectification of the sale deed and to direct the OP to clear all the dues in the BBMP on the property sold is not a dispute amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer Forum. The complainant has purchased the flat through a real estate agency and it is an out right sale. The relation between complainant and the OP is purchaser and the seller. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complainant filed before this forum is not maintainable. <br /> <br /> <br /> 8. In Tamilnadu Housing Board vs. R.Sivasubramaniayan 1998(2) CCC 97(NS) : [1986-99 Consumer 3587 (NS)].<br /> It is observed as under:<br /> “This case is one where the allotment of the plot has been made for the highest bidder in a public auction. We do not intend to go into the merits of the case as we consider that the matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. We have held in similar matters vide Panjim Planning & Development Authority vs. Mrs. Rashmi A. Sirsat and others, (Revision Petition No.258 of n1992 decided on 10-01-1994) (1986-95 Consumer 8(NS) and Shiela Constructions Pvt. Ltd. And another vs. Nainital Lake Development Authority and others (Original Petition Nos. 230 & 249/1993 decided on 21-06-1996) (1996 (2) CCC 743 (NS) : 1986-99 Consumer 4876 (NS) : III (1996) CPJ (NC) PP 11-13 that Consumer Fora cannot grant any relief in matters where the transaction has arisen out of auction sale which tantamount to outright sale of immovable property and, therefore, there is no arrangement of hiring of service for consideration between the parties.”<br /> <br /> 9. The principles laid down in the above cases clearly goes to show that in the case of purchase of property in the public auction purchaser cannot become a consumer and there is no arrangement of hiring of service of the seller. The same principles are applicable to the case in hand where a flat is sold for consideration and there is no hiring of service of the OP while selling the flat. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. The same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following :- <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable. The complainant can approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate remedy if so advised. Since the OP is not represented we make no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 5th day of October 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS*<br />