The President, Karnataka State 'D' Emplyees Central Association V/S G.Padmanabhan S/o Late P.K.Nair
G.Padmanabhan S/o Late P.K.Nair filed a consumer case on 20 May 2010 against The President, Karnataka State 'D' Emplyees Central Association in the Bangalore 4th Additional Consumer Court. The case no is CC/2010/22 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Karnataka
Bangalore 4th Additional
CC/2010/22
G.Padmanabhan S/o Late P.K.Nair - Complainant(s)
Versus
The President, Karnataka State 'D' Emplyees Central Association - Opp.Party(s)
V.Dayanand
20 May 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN,Ph:22352624 No:8, 7th floor, Sahakara bhavan, Cunningham road, Bangalore- 560052. consumer case(CC) No. CC/2010/22
G.Padmanabhan S/o Late P.K.Nair
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The President, Karnataka State 'D' Emplyees Central Association The General Secretary, Karnataka State 'D' Emplyees Central Association, Multi Storied Building
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Anita Shivakumar. K 2. Ganganarsaiah 3. Sri D.Krishnappa
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
O R D E R SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT: The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops are, that Ops are the office bearers of Karnataka State Group-D Central Association formed layout for providing house sites to its members. Accordingly, he was one of the members of the Ops association, was allotted a site bearing No.2270 in survey No.313 measuring 15 X 30. Its possession was also delivered to him and possession certificate was also issued on 30/09/2003, sale deed in respect of the site was also executed on 31/12/2003 in his name. But he was surprised to notice that in place of site No.2270 site No.2269 was appearing. In this connection, he sent a letter to the Op explaining dis-appearance of his site No.2270 replaced with 2269 and requested the Ops to deliver him physical possession of his site No.2270 but Ops have not done so. Thereby has prayed for enquiring into his grievance and to direct the Ops to deliver physical possession of site No.2270 and to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs towards mental agony and to award cost. Counsel called MVB filed power for Ops but thereafter has neither filed version and nor affidavit evidence and thus the Ops did not contest the case. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence besides producing copy of the sale deed, copy of possession certificate, copy of nil encumbrance certificate and no objection certificate. Heard the counsel for complainant and perused the records. The counsel for the complainant has also filed his written arguments. The counsel for complainant in his written arguments referred to certain statements of the Op alleged to had been made in their version though Ops have not filed version contending that Ops by making false statement caused mental agony to the complainant. Without going to much detail of allotment of site in favour of the complainant, payment of consideration and other details, the complaint can be disposed of as not maintainable for the reasons we assign below. Admittedly after the schedule site was allotted to the complainant by the Ops, the sale deed dated 14/11/2003 was executed in favour of the complainant and in the body of the sale deed it has been categorically stated that possession of the site No.2270 was handed over by them vide possession certificate dated 30/09/2003. Further, the possession certificate produced by the complainant himself dated 30/09/2003 discloses that the site bearing No.2270 with boundary was delivered to the complainant and he was put in possession of the same. Thereafter, complainant who was happy in his house has filed this complaint on 04/01/2010 complaining that he was surprised to see his site No.2270 was disappearing and new No.2269 was written in its place and thereby has prayed for direction to Ops to again put him in physical possession of that site. It is clear from the complainants case after more than 7 years after he was put in possession of the site has come up with the grievance. Once title to a property is transferred under the registered document in favour of the beneficiary and he was put in possession of it the responsibility of the Op seized and shifted on the complainant to look after and safeguard his property on his own. Therefore, after getting title and possession of the property if something goes wrong he has to blame himself for it and he is at liberty to take action against any acts of introducers and initiate necessary action before the appropriate court if needed. Therefore, complainant can not ask for delivering possession of the property for the second time. Hence, under the facts of this case, we find no deficiency in the service of the Op and the complaint is therefore is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. With the result, we pass the following order. O R D E R Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 20th May 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
......................Anita Shivakumar. K ......................Ganganarsaiah ......................Sri D.Krishnappa
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.