COMPLAINT FILED: 25.01.2011
DISPOSED ON: 03.05.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
03RD MAY 2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.171/2011
Complainant | Mr. C.K.Vinay S/o Sri.C.S.Krishnamurthy, Aged about 35 years, Residing at # 3367/J, 13th Main, HAL-II Stage, Indira Nagar, Bangalore-560 008 Advocate :V.K.Narayana-swamy V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. Tharus Kumar Savandhi S/o. Mr.R.Shivarudrappa, Aged about 36 years, Residing at # 16/73, 5th Cross, Rajaji Nagar, IV Block, Bangalore-560 010. 2. Mrs. Nandini Savandhi D/o. S.R.Shivarudrappa, Aged about 35 years, Residing at # 16/73, 59th Cross, Rajaji Nagar, IV Block Bangalore-560 010. |
| | | |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to refund advance lease amount of Rs.8 lakhs received under lease deed dated 05.06.2008 along with interest at 18% p.a. from date of receipt in alternative to hand over the physical possession of schedule property in terms of the lease deed after receiving the balance amount of lease as mentioned in the lease deed dated 05.06.2008, along with compensation and cost on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:
Complainant entered into a lease deed dated 30th may 2008 with the OPs for a period of Three years. OPs agreed to hand over the actual and physical possession of the said property on payment of Rs.12 lakhs as security deposit/lease amount to OP. The schedule property shall not carry any rent nor any interest in respect of the lease amount. Complainant paid the following amount to Op towards the lease deed.
a) Cheque dated 07.06.2008 for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs.
b) Cheque dated 18.07.2008 for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs.
c) Cheque dated 10.07.2008 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh.
d) Cash of Rs.1 lakh paid on 23.07.2008.
e) Cash of Rs.2 lakhs paid on 24.11.2008
Two cheques mentioned above No.(b) and (c) was dishonoured on presentation for encashment. Hence complainant issued self cheque dated 21.07.2008 for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and same has been encashed by OP. Complainant had to pay balance of lease amount of Rs.4 lakhs to OPs. Complainant was ready and willing to pay the same subject to hand over of physical and actual possession of the schedule property but OP on some pretext or other did not fulfill their promise. OPs went on giving false promises to return the entire amount collected from the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests when OP failed to return the amount or handed over physical possession of the schedule property, Complainant got issued legal notice on 24.12.2008 calling upon OP to hand over actual physical possession of the schedule property after receiving the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs failing to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant OP in their reply notice dated 02.12.2008 acknowledged that they have received only a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and ready and willing to return the advance amount within 3 months from the date of the said reply notice. Later on OP neither refunded the amount nor handed over actual and physical possession the schedule property to the complainant. Every time OP went on making false promises and failed to fulfill the same on one pretext or the other. Complainant paid huge amount with a hope of getting possession of the schedule property for the purposes of his bonafide use and occupation. OP failed to give possession of the schedule property or in alternative to refund the money. All his efforts and request went in vain. There is no positive response from OPs. Though OPs promised to refund a sum of Rs.5 lakhs; instead of Rs.8 lakhs within a month as per their legal notice failed to refund the same. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service and he is advised to approach this forum for the necessary relief’s.
3. Heard on maintainability of the complaint at the admission stage.
4. From the above pleadings the point now that arises for our consideration in this complaint is “whether the complaint filed by the complaint is maintainable”?
5. We record our findings “In negative”
REASONS
6. Complainant by virtue of lease deed dated 30.05.2008 entered into lease agreement with the OPs and claims to have paid Rs.8 lakhs on different dates from 07.06.2008 to 21.07.2008. OPs failed to hand over possession or to refund the amount. In this case complainant is not a consumer. He has not availed any services from the OPs. The Jural relation between the complainant and OPs is that of lessee and lessor and not that of consumer and trader or manufacturer or the service provider. The alleged dispute is not a consumer dispute. Hence the same will not come under consumer protection Act. Hence this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter. Complainant has remedy somewhere else but not before this Forum.
7. In the citation I (2008) CPJ 260 (NC) Saroja Bala V/s. Haryana Urban Development Authority submitted by the complainant, OP being developer has offered the service of allotting sites and formation of layout and after accepting consideration failed to fulfill its promises. Hence complainant becomes consumer and dispute between the parties is of a consumer dispute. In the instant case OP is not a developer, complainant has not availed any services from OP. The relationship between the complainant and OPs is that of a lessee and lessor. The dispute is in respect of possession of schedule property mentioned in the lease deed dated: 05.06.2008. The dispute is not a consumer dispute. Hence this citation will not help the complainant.
8. In view of the same complaint filed before this forum is not maintainable, the complainant is at liberty to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum if so advised. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable at the admission stage.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 03rd day of May 2011.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
gm.
