State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Hariappa Anant Kamath And Anr. vs Mr. Mahesh Gurunath Tare And Ors. on 11 March, 2014
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Consumer Complaint No.CC/13/234
1. Mr. Hariappa Anant
Kamath,
2. Mrs. Swati
Hariappa Kamath
Both R/at:- A-101,
Shivshankar Krupa C.
H. S. Ltd.,
Tilak Road, Near Brahman Sabha Hall,
Dombivli (East),
Taluka Kalyan
THANE 421 201.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Mr. Mahesh
Gurunath Tare,
2. Mr. Sandip
Haribhau Tare,
Both R/at:- 411,
Pandurang Niwas,
Tare Ali, Titwala
(East),
Taluka Kalyan,
THANE 421 605.
3. Mr. Shantaram
Vithu Tare,
Shri Kala Kendra,
Near Maha-Ganapati Temple,
Next to Samadhan
Hotel,
Titwala (East),
Taluka Kalyan
THANE 421 605.
4. Mr. Mohan H.
Tharwani,
Address:- 310 313,
03rd floor,
Persipolis Premises
CHS Ltd.,
Plot No.74, Sector
-17,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
5. Mr. Jayawant
Keshav Dudhmande,
6. Smt. Smita
Jayawant Dudhmande
Both having address
at:-
31, Omkar Swarup
Society,
03rd
floor, Opp. Corporation Bank,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Dombivli (East),
Taluka Kalyan,
THANE 421 201.
...........Opponent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. P. B. JOSHI, , PRESIDING
JUDICIAL MEMBER
HONBLE MR.
NARENDRA KAWDE, MEMBER PRESENT:
Adv. R. D. Desai for the Complainants Adv. B. G. Ahuja for the Opponent No.4 None present for other Opponents ORDER Per Honble Mr. Narendra Kawde, Member We have heard at length learned Adv. R. D. Desai on behalf of the Complainants and learned Adv. B. G. Ahuja on behalf of the Opponent No.4 on the point of admission of complaint as well as on the application filed by the Complainants for grant of an interim relief. Opponents Nos.1, 2, 5 & 6 chose to remain absent though duly served and did not advance oral submissions.
[2] In the year 1996, the Complainants purchased from the Opponents a housing plot admeasuring 3000 sq. ft. for a total consideration of `1,50,000/-, by paying an amount of `75,000/- towards part-consideration and received possession thereof.
Balance consideration was agreed to be paid in due course and after compliances of certain conditions.
Present consumer complaint has been filed seeking for a direction as against the Opponents to execute the Deed of Conveyance and claiming compensation of `95,00,000/- for failure on the part of the Opponents to execute the Deed of Conveyance and ancillary prayer to award `2,00,000/- towards costs of litigation.
[3] Learned Advocate for the Complainants tried to attribute abnormal delay in executing the Deed of Conveyance on the part of the Opponents though there was constant persuasion from the Complainants. It is admitted that an amount of `75,000/- was paid by the Complainants to the Opponents towards part-consideration as against the total agreed consideration of `1,50,000/- and the Opponents handed over the possession of the plot to the Complainants on 02/07/2006.
[4] The Complainants filed this consumer complaint with a statement of claim totaling to `97,00,000/-. Surprisingly, the Complainants did not mention in the claim statement, the value of goods or services. However, ignoring this fact, filed a claim for an amount of `95,00,000/- towards compensation and `2,00,000/- towards costs of litigation. Moreover, prayer of the Complainant pertains to execution of conveyance. While claiming compensation of `95,00,000/-, no documentary evidence is produced on the record to show the market value of the plot which is already in possession of the Complainants. There is no sufficient justification as to why the Complainants failed to incorporate the value of the goods and services (in this case value of the plot) which is subject matter of dispute as provided under Section-17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, the prayer is for execution of conveyance in respect of the property which is already in possession of the Complainants. It is settled principle of law through various judicial pronouncements that at the time of execution of the conveyance deed only the notional value is required to be taken into consideration. Sale price in the year 1996 in respect of the said plot was only of `1,50,000/-. Thus, on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, the complaint as filed is not tenable before the State Commission. However, the Complainants have remedy elsewhere. Hence, the complaint is not entertained at admission stage. Consequently, it is returned to the Complainants for presenting the same before competent Forum/Court having jurisdiction. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.
Pronounced on 11th March, 2014 [HON'ABLE MR P. B. JOSHI] PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER [HONABLE MR. NARENDRA KAWDE] MEMBER KVS