Date of Filing : 03.02.2021.

Date of Disposal : 25.06.2021

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF JUNE-2021

PRESENT

Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.111/2021

Sri.Raju.D

S/o Late Doddaiaha

Aged about 73 years,

R/at Raja Kutira,

Behind Sharavathi

Dental College, Sagara Road,

Shivamogga-577204.                                    ..Appellant/s

(By Sri.K.B.Gopal, Advocate)

The City Municipal Corporation

Rep. by its Commissioner,

Opp. Gandhi Park,

O R D E R

Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This is an Appeal filed U/s 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Complainant/appellant herein aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 passed by Shivamogga District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.41/2020. (for short District Commission).
2. This appeal matter is set for admission before the Commission. We heard the learned counsel for the Complainant/appellant herein and examined the impugned order dtd.15.10.2020.
3. Now we have to examine whether the impugned order dtd.15.10.2020 passed in CC.No.41/2020 is contrary to the law and facts required to be interfered in this appeal ?.
4. The appellant herein raised the consumer complaint U/s.12 of the CP Act, 1986 to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.95,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. The alleged deficiency in service in the matter effecting khatha of properties to his name. The District Commission while in appreciation of evidence of the Complainant and evidence of the Commissioner Administrator of City Municipal Corporation, Shivamogga, coupled with Ex-P1 to P27 negated his case, thereby dismissed the complaint with a liberty to approach proper forum/court seeking the relief which is now in appeal on the grounds that the impugned order is passed contrary to the law, facts and probabilities of the case is capricious, illegal and arbitrary is liable to be set aside.
5. We examined the records and in particular impugned order, thereby found the Complainant/appellant raised the consumer complaint in respect of the sites formed by him numbering 11 in Sy.No.71/3 situated at Alkola village, Shivamogga. He alleged against OP/Respondent herein that their unanswered causing delay in effecting khatha of the schedule properties. In this regard, the respondent/OP before the District Commission contended that it is a statutory body and Quasi Judicial Authority, as such with regard to entering of the name in Assessment Register, issue of license which are the domain of the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and the Complainant has chosen wrong forum to seek reliefs. If we examine the order could see the District Commission has rightly incorporated Sec.61 & 62 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, besides the provisions of Sec.135 & 136, since they provide for Bar of suits and provide for as to how Appeal and Revision has to be filed. As such followed by the decision rendered by Hon’ble NCDRC reported in II (2016) CPJ (NC) wherein held that “Revenue department of State Government being the core administrative and land management Department of State performs mostly the statutory functions – CP Act,1986 is not applicable because remedy in such cases is already available under Revenue Law of State Government.” As such the impugned order passed by the Commission below viewed from any angle could not be interfered in this appeal for the grounds set out by the Complainant/appellant. Accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed as devoid of merits at the admission stage itself directing the parties to bear their own cost.
6. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

Lady Member                           Judicial Member

*NSG*