BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 11/2013.
THIS THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Malani Patil W/o. S.B. Patil, aged about
36 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 1-12- 17, Daddy Colony, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Secretary Government Employees
Housing Co-operative Society, Raichur.
:- 2. The Municipal Commissioner, City
Municipal Council, Raichur.
Dismissed as per order 3. The Secretary, Planning Authority, Raichur.
Dated 20-02-2013.
4. The Commissioner,
Raichur Rural Development Authority,
Raichur.
Date of institution :- 01-02-2013.
Date of disposal :- 13 -09-2013
Complainant represented by Sri. H. Jagadeesh, Advocate.
Respondent No-1 represented by Sri. T. Kishan Rao, Advocate.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondents U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant had purchased a plot bearing No. 597 & 714 from the Government Employees Housing Society, Raichur through auction sale by the K.S.F.C Raichur. Accordingly the sale certificate was issued in favour of the complainant dt. 07-04-2010. The plot No. 597 in Sy.No. 13 measures 9x12 meters and plot No. 714 in Sy.No. 16/1B measures 2x18 meters which are situated in Askihal village, Raichur. Earlier the plot No. 597 was purchased by one Smt. Vanamala. She had obtained vehicle loan from K.S.F.C Raichur. Due to non payment of loan amount the plot purchased by her was auctioned and the complainant purchased it. After that the complainant visited the spot and found no development work had taken place in the said layout. Thereby the Respondent No-1 had violated the entire condition by not providing basic amenities like road, drainage, water supply, street lights etc., The Respondent No-1 had violated the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Act where formation of layout and all the conditions imposed by Respondent No-1 was totally violated. In spite of this Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 approved the layout by collecting necessary fees and charges. There was no demarking of plots as per approved layout. Due to this the complainant and other purchasers are put into great hardships and inconvenience as it is very difficult to identify their plots for undertaking construction works. Thereby the Respondents 1 to 4 committed deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.
3. As per memo filed by the counsel for complainant the complaint against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed as per order dt. 20-02-2013.
4. The Respondent No-1 appeared through his counsel and filed the written version stating that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The NGO HBCS is a registered Co-operative Housing Society governed by provisions of K.C.S Act 1959 and K.C.S Rules 1960. The byelaws of the society is registered under the provisions of K.C.S. Rules. The society renders services to persons who are enrolled as members of the society. The complainant is not a member of Respondent No-1’s society. As such, the complainant has no Locus standi to file complaint U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act. Therefore the complaint is liable to be rejected. The complainant in Para-1 of the complaint stated that she purchased Plot No. 597 & 714 in auction sale which fact is not known to Respondent No-1. Before the purchase of the said plots, the complainant has failed to get clearance from Respondent No-1. The facts stated in Para-2 of the complaint are partly correct to the extent that Smt. Vanamala purchased the Plot No. 597 and she is a member of Respondent No-1’s society. She had not obtained any permission from Respondent No-1 for selling the plots for her personal gain. The facts stated in Para-3 of the complaint are disputed. The complainant ought to have visited the plot before its purchase. The plot is under the approved layout and Respondnet No-1 has not violated the conditions of the RDA. It is the responsibility of the allottee to pay the development charges to CMC etc., for works of amenities. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-1. No communication was received to Respondent No-1 either orally or in writing about purchasing of the plot from Smt. Vanamala. Therefore the complaint be rejected as against the Respondent No-1 in the interest of justice and equity.
5. Complainant to prove her case filed her affidavit evidence which is marked as PW-1 and relied on twelve documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. The Respondent No-1 to prove his case filed his affidavit evidence which is marked as RW-1. No documents are marked.
6. Arguments heard on Respondent’s side.
7. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents’ against her.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
8. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In Negative
(2) In Negative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
9. On perusal of the materials placed before us we are of the firm opinion that, the Respondent No-1 has rightly contended that the complainant does not have Locus Standi to file the complaint against him because the complainant is not a consumer vis-à-vis the Respondent No-1 is concerned. The complainant never had an agreement or sale transaction with the Respondent No-1 with regard to the sites alleged to have been purchased by her. If she had purchased the sites from the Respondent No-1, definitely there would have been a cause of action for her to file the complaint against the Respondent No-1. But she purchased the sites in an auction initiated by KSFC for the recovery of the loan amount borrowed by one Smt. Vanamala who had purchased the site No. 597 from the Respondent No-1. Therefore the complainant cannot have any grievance or consumer dispute against the Respondent No-1. Therefore the question of deficiency in service by the Respondent No-1 as against the complainant does not arise at all. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against the Respondent No-1 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. As the complainant has failed to prove her case of deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No-1 she is not entitled for any reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
11. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on 13-09-2013 )
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
