Date of Filing: 23/09/2011
Date of Order: 05/12/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 5th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1776 OF 2011
Sri.Suresh Rao.N,
S/o.Late. V.R. Narayana Rao,
Aged About 45 years,
No.1345, 4th Main, 5th Cross,
Chandra Layout, Bangalore-40.
(Rep. by Sri.Lokesh.B.C., Advocate) …. Complainant.
V/s
1. M/s.Upkar Estates,
Rep. by its partner Sri.Abrar Rahman Khan,
No.41/1, R.V.Road, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-560 004.
(Rep. by Sri.Goutam & Rajeswar, Advocate)
2. Sri. Madaiah,
S/o. Late. Maranna @ Marappa,
R/at: Muddanapalya Village,
Hamlet of Gidadakonenahalli,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
(Notice served – remained absent) …. Opposite Parties.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The complainant has made this complaint seeking direction to the opposite party No.1 to put the complainant in possession of the site in question, refund Rs.1,80,000/- and to pay Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation on making certain allegations.
2. Opposite party No.1 had put in appearance and opposite party No.2 though served remained absent.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have put their respective affidavits and documents. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether the complaint is barred by time?
- Whether this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) to (C): As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A to C:-
6. Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act reads that:-
“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.”
That means to say the District Forum has jurisdiction with respect to the consumer complaint where the subject matter of the dispute, the reliefs sought for and the compensation sought together does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/- if it exceeds Rs.20,00,000/- then the District Forum will not have any jurisdiction.
7. In this case the complainant at Para-19(i) has stated thus:-
“To pass an order directing the opposite party No.1 to put the complainant in possession of Layout site or to compensate with an alternative site in any of their existing or ongoing projects.”
That means to say the complainant wants the possession of the property described the schedule or to give an alternative site not in any other project of the opposite party. The complainant at Para-16 has stated thus:-
“The complainant submits that when the complainant had caused the legal notice to the opposite party No.1 with respect to the compensation damage amount, the market value of the property was Rs.30,00,000/- as there was boom in the real estate, but now the complainant has verified the market value and evaluated that the square feet in the surround area and the market value stands to Rs.1,500/- and on the basis the complainant is claiming the damage of Rs.18,00,000/-.”
That means to say the value of the property is Rs.18,00,000/- according to him. Regarding the possession it is the value of the property that counts. Hence the prayer regarding possession is valued at Rs.18,00,000/-.
8. The complainant at Para-19(ii) has prayed thus:-
“To pass an order to refund the Sale consideration amount of Rs.1,80,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum.”
That is to say he wants Rs.1,80,000/- to be given to him by the opposite party.
9. Further at Para-19(iii) he has stated thus:
“To pass an order directing the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- as damages.”
That means to say that the complainant wants Rs.18,00,000/- to be given to him by the opposite party. That means to say the value for the purpose of jurisdiction as per prayer No.19(1) + 19(2) + 19(3) that is Rs.18,00,000/- + Rs.1,80,000/- + Rs.18,00,000/- = Rs.37,80,000/-. Hence this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Even otherwise if the value at prayer No.19(1) is taken as Rs.1,80,000/- even then it comes to Rs.21,60,000/-. Hence under any circumstances this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
10. In this case the complainant is seeking possession of the property alleging that the property has been sold to him on 27.04.2005, he has got the katha made over in his name he is paying the tax, but possession has not been given. Hence he has issued notice to the opposite party on 30.09.2010 as it has not complied he has filed this complaint. The relevant portion of the sale deed which is admitted by both the parties reads thus:-
“The above said amount paid in favour of M/s.Upkar Estates, towards the full and final satisfaction of the sale consideration amount before the witnesses and the G.P.A. holder Sri.Abrar Rahman Khan, Partner of Upkar Estates, hereby acknowledges the receipt of the entire sale consideration amount from the Purchaser in the aforesaid manner and discharges the Purchaser from any further liability to pay and also in consideration of the convenants therein contained, the Vendor does as sole, true beneficial and lawful owner of the schedule property hereby sells, assigns, conveys and sets over the possession of all the schedule property in to and in favour of the Purchaser free from all encumbrances and clogs.”
That means according to the sale deed the complainant had taken possession of the property as on 27.04.2005. If the possession is not delivered, he could have filed the complaint within two years there from, but it has not been filed in 2011; merely issuing notice will not enlarge the limitation. From 2005 to 2010 the complainant had kept quit and in only 2010 October he has issued notice. Hence the complaint is hopelessly barred by time.
11. The complainant has cited 1 (2004) CPJ 22, I(2002) CPJ 547, III (2001) CPJ 459, I(2004) CPJ 98, III(2005) CPJ 3. There is no dispute above the proposition of law stated therein. These principals are not applicable for the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 5th Day of December 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
