Date of Filing: 03.12.2009<br /> Date of Order: 18.12.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2843 OF 2009<br /> <br /> 1. Dr. Mohan Keshavamurthy<br /> 2. Dr. Seetha Belwadi<br /> R/at Apartment No. A3-204<br /> Whitehouse, 15th Cross<br /> 6th Main Road, R.T. Nagar<br /> Bangalore 560 032 Complainants<br /> V/S¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬<br /> White House Association<br /> (Registered under Section 2 of<br /> Karnataka Apartment Owners Act, 1972)<br /> 15th Cross, 6th Main Road, R.T. Nagar<br /> Bangalore 560 032<br /> Rep. by its President, Mrs. Sunita Sunil Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that opposite party is a registered association under Karnataka Apartment Owners Act 1972. Complainant is owner of flat No. A3-204 and is paying monthly maintenance charges to the opposite party. Each apartment owner is member of association and they are required to pay maintenance charges fixed by the managing committee. It is the responsibility of the opposite party to see that no damages are caused to apartment. Complainants have got two cars. Some miscreants have damaged the car by playing football in front of parking space in the evening of 16.0.2009. The complainants have lodged complaint to R.T. Nagar police station. Once again someone has damaged the car on 22.08.2009. Complainants gave police complaint to the jurisdictional police to investigate the matter. Complainants have spent amount for repairing the cars. Police have registered cases in Cr.No. 357/2009 for the offence punishable under section 427 and 504 IPC. The complainants addressed letter to the opposite party that the acts have been caused by son of Smt. Mamatha, the treasurer of opposite party. The opposite party has rejected the requests of the complainants to reimburse the loss caused to them due to the damage of the cars. It is specified that cars have been damaged by son of Mamatha, the Treasurer of the opposite party’s association. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to reimburse the loss caused to the complainants and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for mental agony.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed version stating that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is no relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ between the complainant and opposite party association. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Cars are the private properties of the complainant. It is alleged that damage have been caused by son of Mamatha. Therefore, opposite party association cannot take steps to recover damages. There is no cause of action to file the complaint against opposite party. Therefore, opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidences have been filed.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?<br /> 2. Where there is relationship of ‘Consumer’ and ‘Service Provider’ between the complainants and opposite party?<br /> 3. Whether the complainants can be granted any relief?<br /> 6. Admittedly, the complainants are the flat owners and they are the part and parcel of the opposite party association. Complainants being the owners of flats are also members of the association. Therefore, where is the question of relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ between the parties. The complainants cannot be terms as ‘consumers’ under definition of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act. When the complainants do not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ the complaint filed by the complainants before this forum is not maintainable in law. Complainants are not outsiders. They are the members of the association. If at all there is any dispute or difference of opinion between the members and management the said matter shall have to be sorted out by the General Body or Executive Committee. The complainants should take the matter with the association and sort out the issues relating to management, maintenance, security etc. Filing of complaint before this forum against their own association is not proper and such complaint is not maintainable. Admittedly, the complainants have submitted that their cars have been damaged by son of Mamatha while playing game. If that is the case the son of Mamatha and his parents are responsible for the damages caused to the cars. How can the opposite party association be held responsible for the act done by son of Smt. Mamatha. Admittedly, the complainants have heard complaint to the concerned police and a case had been registered for the offence punishable under section 427 i.e. mischief and 504 IPC. The police can investigate the matter and submit the charge sheet against culprit. The matter has been taken to police. The criminal act will be dealt with according to law. Therefore, there is no question of filing complaint before this forum. The scope of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum is limited. This forum cannot go into the aspect of criminal nature of the cases. Already the police have registered case for mischief and the law will take its own course. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable. However, it is observed that the opposite party association shall be careful and vigilant in maintaining safety and security of the owners of apartments. Opposite party association should take all necessary steps as per their bye-laws in keeping security and maintenance of the common area and apartment building. The opposite party association shall see that no complaints are received from the owners in respect of security and safety of the person and property. With this observation the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />