State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yaluchuri Poorna Chandra Rao,S/O ... vs A.P.S.F.C. Rep.By Its Branch ... on 6 October, 2007
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM , PRAKSAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM , PRAKSAM DISTRICT AT
ONGOLE.
PRESENT: SRI CH.
RAMESH BABU., M.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SMT. M. RAGHAVA
RANI, MEMBER.
This the 6th day
of October, 2007
CC: 100/2007
BETWEEN:
Yaluchuri Poorna Chandra Rao,
S/o Venkata Rao, aged about 43 years,
Hindu, Business, R/o Maderametla Po & Vg.,
Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ...
Complainant.
Vs.
A.P.S.F.C. rep.by its Branch Manager,
Bhagya Nagar 2nd Lane,
Ongole. Opposite
party.
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: SRI
M. RAJA RAM,
ADVOCATE,
ONGOLE.
COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: SRI O. NARASIMHA SASTRY,
ADVOCATE,
ONGOLE.
This complaint is
coming on 05.10.2007 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this
Forum delivered the following:
ORDER:
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties.
2. The main case of the complainant as per petition averments is that the complainant submits that he was bid the complainant schedule property for an amount of Rs.2,51,000/- that where percent the value of the cost of the land Rs.4,327-58 paise.
The complainant also got registered the schedule property in his name by opposite party on 01.10.2005. The complainant sold the property to Nallabothu Saibabanaidu, S/o Chenchubabu Naidu, Chinthalapalem Post, Prakasam District. The Nallabothu Saibabanaidu measured the land and found Ac.0.14 cents extent was less in the schedule property and the same was reported by him to the complainant in the presence of complainant again the measurements were taken and found that it was less of Ac.0.14 cents. The complainant made representation to the opposite party claiming an amount of Rs.60,586-20 paise towards the cost of losing extent of Ac.0.14 cents as per the cost of his registration dated 01.10.2005.
3. The complainant prayed to direct the opposite party to pay the value of Ac.0.14 cents i.e., Rs.60,586/- excess interest paid by complainant to opposite party Rs.24,500/- and excess registration charges paid by complainant for Ac.0.14 cents Rs.5,800/- interest on Rs.60,586.20 from 01.10.2005 to 18.12.2006 @ 24% p.a. i.e, Rs.23,863.50/- total Rs.1,14,749.70/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.
4. The opposite party filed counter mainly stating that the complainant, after through perusal of the public notice submitted tender for purchase of land of Ac.0.58 cents in S.No.300/1A of Tangutur Village. After negotiation sale was finalized for Rs.2.51 lakhs and a letter dated 21.02.2005 advising the complainant to remit sale consideration within 30 days. The complainant gave notice dated 13.11.2006 stating that part of the land was acquired by concerned authorities. The opposite party followed the procedure scrupulously in the exercise power under section 29 of S.F.C. Act. After receiving the sale consideration, the opposite party executed sale deed in favour of the purchaser the sale deed is in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the tender notice.
5. The complainant stated that on measurement there was shortage of Ac.0.14 cents it was reported to the complainant. This court has no jurisdiction and the complainant is not entitled for payment of any compensation and the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint on the ground there is no deficiency in service.
6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service by the opposite party or not?
and whether the subject matter is a civil dispute or not?
7. The complainant filed documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. Ex.A1 is the letter dated 21.02.2005 from opposite party in favour of complainant. Ex.A2 is the letter dated 28.06.2006 from opposite party a copy to complainant.
Ex.A3 is the office copy of registered lawyer notice dated 13.11.2006. Ex.A4 is the postal receipt of the above said notice (2 in number).
Ex.A5 is the acknowledgment signed by the opposite party dated 14.11.2006. Ex.A6 is the reply notice from N. Saibabu Naidu dated 01.12.2006.
Ex.A7 is the reply notice from opposite party dated 08.01.2007.
8. In this case to come to the right conclusion whether the opposite party handed over entire Ac.0.58 cents in S.No.300/1A of Tangutur Village, measuring of the land by the surveyor is needed. The allegation by the opposite party is that some 3rd parties have taken the amount for Ac.0.14 cents under acquisition proceedings by the R & B Authorities. The examination of 3rd parties who allegedly received the amounts is also necessary parties. To come to the right conclusion on the point whether the opposite party handed over entire land as per the schedule to the complainant or not and whether there is any deficit of Ac.0.14 cents or not examination of parties and cross-examination of parties also very much necessary. But, in the summary trial before this forum, it is highly difficult to come to rightful decision.
9. Further, we are in opinion that this forum has no jurisdiction as the relationship between the opposite party and complainant is seller and auction purchaser relationship there is no consumer relationship between them. Even though, if there is less extent of Ac.0.14 cents, in the total extent, the auction purchaser has to approach the civil court for the proper remedy, but not before this forum to recovery of the excess amount paid by the complainant.
10. So, the complainant fails to establish that this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the case and also fails to establish the relationship between the opposite party and the complainant is not seller and purchaser relationship and it is a consumer relationship. As, the complicated question of fact is involved in the dispute, we are in opinion that civil court is right forum to adjudicate the subject matter after examinations of the parties.
11. In the result, the petition is dismissed with an observation that the subject matter involved civil dispute and also involved complicated question of fact which cannot be decide in summary trial. The complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for the remedies prayed before this forum.
Dictated to the shorthand-writer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 6th day of October, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC) DIST.FORUM,ONGOLE.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY NONE NONE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1: 21.02.2005 : Letter from opposite party in favour of complainant Ex.A2: 28.06.2006 : Letter from opposite party a copy to complainant Ex.A3: 13.11.2006 : Office copy of registered lawyer notice Ex.A4:: Postal receipt of the above said notice ( 2 in number) Ex.A5: 14.11.2006 : Acknowledgment signed by the opposite party Ex.A6: 01.12.2006 : Reply notice from N. Saibabu Naidu Ex.A7: 08.01.2007 : Reply notice from opposite party DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY : NIL PRESIDENT (FAC)