BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE

Dated this the 7^th March 2017

PRESENT

   SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.28/2014

(Admitted on 17.01.2014)

Mrs. Anitha R Shetty,

W/o K. Rajprem Shetty,

Aged about 52 years,

Residing at Nithyananda Vihar,

Post Balila, Via Bellara,

Sullia Taluk 574239.

                                                          ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri DRK)

VERSUS

The Managing Director,

Mega City (Bangalore)

Developers & Builders Limited,

I^st Chandra Block, 5^th Cross,

Gandhinagar, Bangalore  9.

                                                              ….......OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri MCK)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite party alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complainant claims she entered into an agreement with opposite party for purchase of schedule property of Rs.96,000/ of which Rs.16,000/ paid by way of cash and the balance paid the entire consideration in instalments.   Sale deed was to be executed within 16 months but despite demands apart from issuing sales possession certificate on 24.7.2001 did not executed sale deed despite legal notice and hence seeks the reliefs.

II.      Opposite party filed written version denying the allegations as to agreement and payment and also amount issue of possession certificate.  Opposite party claim that as the schedule property is situated at Bangalore and alleged agreement and possession certificate exhibit at Bangalore no part of it took place within the jurisdiction of this Forum.     Hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.

2.     In support of the above complainants Mrs. Anitha R Shetty filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked Ex.C1 to C2 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. C.P Gangadhareswara (RW1) Property Developers also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.

III.    In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether this Forum as Territorial Jurisdiction to try the case?
2. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
4. What order?

      The learned counsel for complainant side not filed notes arguments.   Opposite party filed brief points.  We have considered entire case filed on record including evidence tendered by the parties.  Our findings on the points are as under follows

                        Point No.  (i)  : Negative

                        Point No.(ii) & (iii) : Does not survive for consideration

                        Point No.(iv)  : As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):    Even according to the complainant the property where the agreed to be sold to complainant is situated at Bangalore.   Ex.C1 possession certificate also issued at Bangalore.   It is not the case of the complainant that any property of the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of forum.   As per Ex.C2 all the receipts produced seeks to in all 72 receipts shows the payment were made at Bangalore.   The only allegation in the complaint at para 7 as to the cause of action is issued of legal notice at Mangalore. 

2.     The learned counsel for complainant should substantiate as to the point of jurisdiction in reported judgment of the West Bengal, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ms. Rina Datta vs Mr. Tanmoy Mondal & Another dated 6^th March 2013.  As seen from this reported case consideration that the article was delivered at the residence of the complainant by concluding that part of the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of the District Forum the complainants claim was reconsidered.   However such situation did not occur in the case on hand.   As such we are of the firm view this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Hence point No.1 answered in the negative.

Points No. (ii) & (iii):      In view of answer to point No.2 & No.3 these two points does not survive for consideration.

POINTS No. (iv) : Wherefore the following

ORDER

                                 The complaint is dismissed.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 5 directly typed by steno on the computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court            on this the 7^th March 2017)

              MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

     (T.C. RAJASHEKAR)                  (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

 D.K. District Consumer Forum             D.K. District Consumer Forum

  Additional Bench, Mangalore              Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mrs. Anitha R. Shetty

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 24.07.2011: Possession certificate (Original copy)

Ex.C2:                 : Payment Receipts (72 Nos.) (Original copy)                          

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1  Mr. C.P Gangadhareswara, Property Developers

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

 Nil 

Dated: 07.03.2017                                    PRESIDENT