State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neeta Mandar Bhatye vs M/S. Expat Projects And Development ... on 24 March, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/306/2022 ( Date of Filing : 21 Feb 2022 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 25/01/2022 in Case No. CC/524/2021 of District Bangalore 2nd Additional) 1. Neeta Mandar Bhatye 42 years, Now residing at 34/305, Mantri Residency Apartments Near Meenakshi Temple, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560076 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/s. Expat Projects and Development Private Limited Reg office at 2nd Floor, Sobha Pearl No.1, Commissariat Road, next to Bangalore Central Bangalore 560025 Also at: M/s Expat Projects and Development Private Limited Office No.32, Bandal Dhankude Plaza 2nd Floor, Opp Kothrud PMT Depot, Paud Road, Bhusari Colony kothrud Pune 411038 Rep by its MD ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 24 Mar 2022 Final Order / Judgement 24.03.2022 ORDER ON ADMISSION MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. Heard the arguments of advocate for appellant on admission.
2. Perused the appeal memo, order sheet of the District Commission, we noticed that on 25.01.2022 the District Commission relied on numbers of decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and dismissed the complaint on the ground that at paragraph-3 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that the complainant wanted to purchase two plots by paying total sale consideration amount of Rs.10,85,000/-. Hence, purchasing of more sites than one amounts for business purpose which do not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
3. Perused the complaint filed in the District Commission in Para No.3 wherein the complainant has contended that he has agreed to purchase two plots by paying total sale consideration of Rs.10,85,000/-. However, the District Commission has not perused para No.4 of the complaint wherein the complainant contended that "she has agreed to purchase two plots one of the token receipt agreement is dt.10.04.2012 for the purchase of the plot bearing No.44 admeasuring ¼ acre 1012 sq.mtrs. approximate (inclusive of road situated at village Parigi, Taluk Hindupur, District Ananthpur, State Andhrapradesh for a total consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- and the complainant has paid the total consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- to the Opposite Party and another dt.18.05.2012 for the purchase of the plot bearing No.53 admeasuring ¼ acre 1012.5 sq.mtrs. approximate (inclusive of road situated at village Pattakurubarapalli, Shoolagiri taluk, Hosur, District Krishnagiri, State Tamilnadu for a total consideration of Rs.7,10,000/- and the complainant has paid a total consideration of Rs.7,10,000/- to the Opposite Party. Therefore, the total consideration paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party together for the purchase of both the above mentioned properties is Rs.10,85,000/-."
4. Without taking consideration of para No.4, the District Commission dismissed the complaint which is not just and proper. The complainant wanted to purchase two plots, it was situated at different jurisdiction one was situated at village Parigi, Taluk Hindupur, District Ananthpur, State Andhrapradesh for a total consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- and other plot is situated at village Pattakurubarapalli, Shoolagiri taluk, Hosur, District Krishnagiri, State Tamilnadu for a total consideration of Rs.7,10,000/-. Moreover, both plots token number is different, date of token receipt agreement is different and both plots are not adjacent properties. If two plots are adjacent with each other at same jurisdiction and token agreement was on same date then only we can assume that might be the complainant has purchased two plots for his business purpose. Hence, considering the discussions made here, we are of the opinion that the complaint is well within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the following;
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The Order dt.25.01.2022 passed by the District Commission in CC.No.524/2021 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Commission and directed to issue notice to Opposite Party/s and to dispose of the matter on merits expeditiously in accordance with law.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar) Member Judicial Member KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER