State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Fakruddin S/O Abdulrahim Madlur vs Megacity(Bangalore) Devolopers on 13 December, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. Complaint Case No. CC/243/2016 ( Date of Filing : 13 Oct 2016 ) 1. Fakruddin S/o Abdulrahim Madlur Age : 63 years, Occ : Retired Employee R/o Aashiyana, H.No.5, Alabavi Layout, 4th Cross, Kalyan Nagar, Dharwad-580 007. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Megacity(Bangalore) Devolopers And Builders Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office No.1, Chandraloka, 5th Cross, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore-09 Represented by Managing Director ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 13 Dec 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 PRESENT MR.RAVISHANKAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI: MEMBER CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.243/2016 Fakruddin S/o Abdulrahim Madlur, Age 63 years, Occ: Retired employee R/o Äashiyana". H No. 5 Alabavi Layout, 4th cross, Kalyan Nagar, Dharwad - 580007. (Represented by Sri. Deepak S Shetty, Advocate) ....Complainant/s V/s Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd Regd. Office No.1, Chandraloka 5th Cross, Gandhi Nagar, Banglore - 560009. Represented by its Manager Director (Represented by Sri. R.S.Ravi and Mayannagowda M.R, Advocate) ....Opposite Party/s O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Complainant files this complaint against Opposite Party alleging a deficiency in service in not providing facilities as per the layout plan and also not providing a clear title over property after complying the norms and procedures prescribed under a Government rules and regulations and also sought for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,00,000/- towards mental agony and other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant entered into an agreement to sell on 10.01.1995 in order to purchase a site measuring 1200 Sft. Dimension: 30x40, in the proposed layout called Vajragiri Township for consideration amount of Rs. 48,000/- and at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, he had paid Rs. 800/- and also paid monthly installments. There afterwards on 24.09.2004, the absolute sale deed was also executed by the Opposite Party in favour of this complainant towards site bearing No.171 in F1 Block, Khata No.103/F1/171. After payment of the entire consideration amount, the same was registered before sub-register office at Kengeri, Bangalore. After execution of the sale deed, the Opposite Party have not developed the layout as per undertaking and as per the plan provided. There afterwards the complainant noticed that the layout plan which was produced was the Bogus one and he received all documents under the right to information act, where he noticed that the proposed scheduled property layout plan permission was given temporarily and there was no documents to show that the permission was granted. Further, he received an information that the Opposite Party have not taken the 'No Objections Certificate' from the Karnataka Pollution Control Board with regarding to said layout and also not obtained the completion certificate from the concerned Authority and the same was not submitted to the concerned Gram Panchayat and the Opposite Party have violated all terms and regulation prescribed under law. The Opposite Party played a fraud against this complainant and induced the complainant to purchase the site though there is no any approvals from the Authorities.
3. The complainant further alleges that he received an information that the Bangalore Mysore infrastructure corridor Area planning Authority sanction order dated 23.02.2004, where the proposed layout was acquired for the purpose of development of the road. The said fact was brought to the knowledge of the Opposite Party but, the Opposite Party have not at all attended to the complainant grievances due to which complainant was not able to construct the house in the scheduled property. There afterwards, he had contacted the Opposite Party on 11.02.2016 and given a complaint with respect to the validity of the Title Deeds and the site but, the Opposite Party have not responded properly inspite of repeated request to provide the proper Title Deeds of the site. The Opposite Party have not bothered at all to attend the complainant request, subsequently, issued a legal notice on 08.07.2016 and called upon this Opposite Party to provide correct titles over the scheduled property and development of layout as per the plan within 15 days but, even after receipt of the legal notice the Opposite Party never mind to comply the layout plan. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint and sought for a compensation of Rs. 60,00,000/- and to provide the Title Deeds of the scheduled property as per the Sale Deed.
4. After service of notice, Opposite Party appeared through his Counsel and filed version and contended that the Opponent company is a registered body under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at No.1, Chandralok, 5th Cross, Gandhinagar, Banglore-560009 and the same was established for the developing the lands for the developing the land for the formation of residential Layouts. That the opponent in order to achieve its object had entered into an agreement and also the land owners has executed registered Power of Attorney in favor of the Opposite Party company agreeing to sell the various extent of lands in various survey numbers of Sheshagirihalli and Manchanayakaanahalli, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagar Taluk and Krishnarajapura and Hampapura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Banglore South Taluk, Banglore District. That the opponent company in order to form the residential layout was required to obtain the permission from the various authorities, namely, Deputy Commissioner Bangalore, Bangalore metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA), Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure corridor area Planning Authority (BMICAPA).
5. The Opposite Party also contended that their company applied for conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultural purposes to form the layout as stated above to the concerned Revenue Department. The Opponent company is a proposed to form the layout comes within the purview of the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority (BMICAPA) and therefore, the revenue department sought clarification/no objection from BMICAPA by its letter dated 18.07.2001. however, BMICAPA issued a letter dated 13.08.2001 to the revenue department to the effect that the land in question can not be converted for non-agricultural purposes. Under the above circumstances, the opponent was not in a position to form the residential layout as proposed earlier. The opponent company took up a project, there were no legal hurdles as such for the formation of the layout. But due to the change in the circumstances, this opponent is not in a position to complete the project as proposed. Under these circumstances, this opponent is not in a position to complete the formation of the residential layout in time. However, after completion of the formation of residential layout, this Opponent executed the Registered sale deed dated 24.09.2004 in favor of the complainant. The complainant going through the relevant documents and satisfying about the site in every aspect purchased the site bearing No.171 in F-1 BLOCK, Khatha No.103/F-1/1717, Vajragiri Township measuring East to West; 30 feet and North to South: 40 feet formed in land bearing Sy.No.28 measuring 2 acres situated at Hampapura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk duly converted for residential purpose through the registered sale deed dated 24.09.2004 and took possession of the said site.
6. The Opposite Party further contended that the complainant has got registered the above said site and taken actual possession of the site in the year 2004 itself, it at all if there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant would have taken any steps against this Opponent. The complainant has not taken any steps to take the complaint towards the alleged deficiency of service within 2 years from the dated of taking the possession and execution of the registered sale deed in favor of the complainant and further submits that the relief sought by the complainant is not within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission and therefore, this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to reject the complaint at the threshold as the same is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Commission and also contended that prayer sought by the complainant at 12(a) is not within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act and same are liable to be adjudicated before the Civil Court only as the said prayer is purely civil in nature. Therefore, above complaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold.
7. The Opposite Party further contended that the complainant has purchased the site for Rs. 48,000/- and is in possession of the said site without any hindrance from anybody since from the date of execution of the absolute sale deed and the complainant is not entitled to get such a huge compensation as there is no any mental agony suffered by complainant. The complainant has filed false malicious, incorrect and baseless complaint in order to gain wrongfully. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint is not maintainable either on law or in facts. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
8. The Opposite Party further contended that after execution of the Sale Deed, the complainant came up with the false allegation after lapse of 12 years which is barred by time, hence, prays to dismiss the complaint under the limitation period also.
9. The complainant filed affidavit evidence and marked documents as Ex-C-1 to Ex-C-8. The Opposite party also filed affidavit evidence, no documents marked. Heard from both sides.
10. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;
(i) Whether the complainant has proved the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought? (iii) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? (iv) What is the order? 11. The findings to the above points are; (i) Negative (ii) Negative (iii) Affirmative (iv) As per final order R E A S O N S
12. On perusal of the pleadings, affidavit evidence and documents produced by both the parties, it is noticed that the Opposite Party has executed the Sale Deed in the year 2004. As per the document No.1, the Sale Deed was executed on 24.09.2004 with respect to the site bearing No. 171 in F1 block, Khata N 103/F1/171, Vajragiri Township measuring East to West 30 feet and north to south 40 feet in totally measuring 1200 Sft. formed in the land bearing Sy.no 28, measuring 2 ares, situated at Hampapur Village, Kengeri hobli, Banglore South Taluk. There afterwards, the complainant sworn affidavit that as per the right to information act, he had received an information that the Opposite Party have not at all developed the layout and the Bogus documents were prepared for the purpose of development of the layout. Basing on the said proposed layout, the complainant had purchased and later it was noticed that the said layout was not developed by the Opposite Party and the entire property was acquired for the purpose of Bangalore Mysore infrastructure corridor as per the Authority's sanction order dated 23.02.2004. Such being the case there is no any Title Deed inspite of that the Opposite Party had executed the Sale Deed by receiving an amount of Rs. 48,000/- and further sworn that he was not able to build a house in the said site due to lack of titles hence, prays for a compensation of the said amount and also sought for issuance of Titles of the property.
13. We noticed that complainant has approached this Commission in the year 2016. After admission of the complaint, this Commission has posted the case for hearing on limitation but, the complainant has not provided any valid reasons to show why there is a delay in filing this complaint. We noticed that after execution of the Sale Deed in the year 2004, the complainant has produced only legal notice which was issued in the year 2016 calling upon the Opposite Party to supply the Title Deeds. There is a delay of 10 to 12 years in approaching this Commission and complainant has not sworn any affidavit with respect to the delay in filing the complaint. Under this ground, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
14. Further, we noticed the complainant after execution of the Sale Deed had alleges that there is a lack of Title Deeds in favour of the Opposite Party. If the complainant alleges the lack of Title Deeds on the part of Opposite Party, the subject matter is purely civil in nature. The complainant after execution of the Sale Deed ceases to be a Consumer and if at all any dispute with respect to the validity of the Sale Deed was raised. The complainant has liberty to approach the civil court for proper relief and here, the complainant has failed to establish that there is Consumer dispute arose in the complaint. In the absence of any material with respect to the Consumer dispute, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and under this ground also the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further, the complainant has not established the proper reasons for claiming such a huge compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Merely claiming the said amount under the reason of mental agony without any documents are not proper and justifiable, under these grounds also the complaint is liable to be dismissed. As such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
13.12.2023 O R D E R The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
Send a copy of this order to both parties.
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar) Member Judicial Member vs* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER