State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt M P Krupa vs M/S Megacity Bangalore Developers And ... on 27 August, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1890/2024 ( Date of Filing : 24 Jun 2024 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 17/05/2024 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/16/2023 of District Bangalore Urban) 1. SMT M P KRUPA W O SRI V RAVICHANDRA D O SRI M L PRAKSAH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R AT NO 111 SAMRUDHI 12TH CROSS 12 MAIN 3RD PHASE GIRINAGAR BANGALORE 560085 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S MEGACITY BANGALORE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS LTD REPTD BY ITS NABAGING DIRECTOR SRI C P YOGESWAR S O PUTTAMADE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS REGD OFFICE AT NO 120 MEGA TOWERS 2ND FLOOR K H ROAD BANGALORE 560027 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 2. SRI C P YOGESWAR S O PUTTAMADE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF MEGA CITY BANGALORE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS LTD R AT NO 143 17TH MAIN ROAD BANSHANKARI 2ND STAGE BANGALORE 560070 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 3. SHRI P MAHADEVIAH SINCE DEAD AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS DIRECTOR OF MEGA CITY BANGALORE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS LTD NO 6 2ND PHASE 80 FEET ROAD DOUBLE ROAD GIRINAGAR BANGALORE 560085 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 4. SHRI C P GANGASHARESHWARA S O SRI PUTAMADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR OF MEGA CITY BANGALORE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS LTD NO 367 2ST E CROSS 2ND PHASE 6TH BLOCK BANSHANKARI 3RD STAGE BANGALORE 560085 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 5. SRI RAMESH H R AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS DIRECTOR OF MEGA CITY BANGALORE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS LTD NO 435 1ST G CROSS 6TH BLOCK BANSHANKARI 3RD STAGE BANGALORE 560085 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 27 Aug 2024 Final Order / Judgement 27.08.2024 ORDER ON ADMISSION MRS. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The Appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2024 passed in CC.No.16/2023 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant on admission. The learned counsel for appellant submits that he became a member of the Opposite Party to purchase a site and was allotted a site bearing No.30/A in A-1 Blok at Megacity Residential Layout situated in Survey No.77/83 and 77/1 at Sheshagirihalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk for a sale consideration of Rs.32,40,000/- and Opposite Party No.1 executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of the complainant on 06.08.2012. The appellant further submits that though the Opposite Party No.1 got the land converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural purpose, the Opposite Party No.1 not provided any basic amenities i.e. lack of roads, drainage, water supply, electricity etc. and also not provided physical possession of the site to them. For which the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.21.11.2022 calling upon the Opposite Party to provide basic amenities and make arrangements so that the site is fit for human habitation. The said legal notice was received by the Opposite Parties, but, failed to comply with same and issued untenable reply to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant was constrained to file a complaint before the District Commission. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.
3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/complainant is in appeal prays to set aside the Order stating that the District Commission has passed an Order by overlooking the aspects of the matter that it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Parties to provide the basic amenities after having the consideration towards the site.
4. Perused the appeal memorandum and the Order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that the respondents have allotted a site bearing No.30/A measuring 3182 sq.ft., Khata No.120/30A in 'A' Block in Megacity Residential Layout, Sheshagiri Halli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and the appellant has paid Rs.32,40,000/- as consideration amount in respect of the site. Subsequently respondents have executed a Sale Deed on 06.08.2012 in favour of the payment and issued a Possession Certificate on 10.09.2012 and the appellant has paid the taxes upto 2019. The allegation of the appellant is that the respondents have not delivered the physical possession of the site after executing the Sale Deed and also failed to develop the said layout and not provided the amenities as per the agreement.
5. Perused the Order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that it is an evident that Ex.R1 to R20 which discloses that the respondents have produced the materials for formation of the road and electricity connection and provided the amenities. They also filed a complaint before the Bidadi Police Station against one Siddarajaiah of same village for removing the boundary stones in the site found in A-1 Block in the residential layout. Such being the case, if the Sale Deed was executed way back in the year 2012 it is presumed that the possession of the site was delivered on the same date. Moreover, it is the bounden duty of the appellant to maintain the site by taking all precautionary measures after execution of the Sale Deed. Moreover, on perusal of the Order, we noticed that the appellant has filed a complaint before the District Commission in the year 2023 and the Sale Deed was executed in the year 2012. Hence, there is no relationship between the appellant and respondents as a 'Consumer' and 'Service Provider'. The relationship between both parties ended when the Sale Deed was executed and Possession Certificate was issued in favour of the appellant. After a lapse of 10 years, the respondents are not responsible for the damages caused by the third party. Moreover, if there is a doubt regarding the existence of the third person in the layout, this Commission has no power to direct the respondents to provide amenities or refund the amount also no power to cancel the Sale Deed. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that it will too much at this point of time i.e. after a lapse of 12 years to direct the respondents to develop the site/provided amenities. As such, we do not find any grounds to admit the appeal. Hence, the following;
O R D E R The appeal is dismissed.No order as to costs.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar) Member Judicial Member KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER