State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionN.Venkat Rao Son Of Tatabbai Aged About ... vs M.M.R. Realestates And Resort Pvt. ... on 5 June, 2017Cause Title/Judgement-Entry 	    	       STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  Telangana             First Appeal No. A/570/2014  (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/06/2014 in Case No. CC/01/2014 of District Rangareddi)             1. N.Venkat Rao son of Tatabbai Aged about 50 Years,  R.o. H.No.12.13.645, Flat No.302, Creative Manners, Nagarajuna Nagar, Tarnaka, Hyderabad 17 ...........Appellant(s)   Versus      1. M.M.R. Realestates and Resort Pvt. Ltd., O.o. C.146, SBH Road, Beside Gulkul Nivas, 159 Near Ganesh Temple  Vasanthalipuram, Hyderabad 70 Rep. by its Muthyala Bal Reddy Son of Chandra Reddy ...........Respondent(s)       	    BEFORE:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT    HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER          For the Appellant:  For the Respondent:    Dated : 05 Jun 2017    	     Final Order / Judgement    

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD

 

 

 

F.A.No. 570 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.01 OF 2014 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM RANGA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

Between

 

N.Venkat Rao S/o Tatabbai

 

Aged about 50 years,

 

R/o H.No.12-13-645, Flat No.302,

 

Creative Manners, Nagarjuna Nagar

 

Tarnaka, Hyderabad-17

 

                                                                   Appellant/complainant                  

 

          A N D

 

 

 

MMR Real Estates & Resort Pvt Ltd.,

 

O/c C-146, SBH, Road, Beside Gulkul Nivas

 

159, Near Ganesh Temple, Vanasthalipuram

 

Hyderabad-70, rep. by its Muthyala Bal Reddy

 

S/o Chandra Reddy

 

 

 

                                                                   Respondent/opposite party

 

 

 

Counsel for the Appellant                  Sri Nerusu Srinivasa Rao

 

Counsel for the Respondent              Sri  C.Ramanjaneyulu

 

 

 

QUORUM             :

 

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT

 

&

 

SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBERMONDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE

 

TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

 

 

Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President)

 

***

 

 

 

          This is an appeal filed by the complainant aggrieved by the orders of District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy,  dated 27.06.2014 made in CC No.01 of 2014  in  dismissing the complaint.2.                For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.3.               The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant  purchased a plot admeasuring 218 sq.yds in Saidhamam Venture at Deshmukhi Village of Nalgonda and paid an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-.  The opposite party executed a sale deed on 09.8.01.2004 in favour of the complainant.  While so, the complainant applied for construction of house in the said plot but the officials rejected his application on the ground that the layout was unauthorized.  The bank has also refused to sanction housing loan to the complainant for the same reason.  The complainant through a letter dated 08.05.2013 requested the opposite party for refund   the amount.  The opposite party agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- and in the first instance it paid Rs.50,000/- in cash and for the remaining balance amount it issued two postdated cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each and the remaining balance of Rs.50,000/- would be paid at the time of cancellation of sale deed.  However, when the complainant submitted the cheques in the bank, they were bounced due to insufficient of funds.  Hence, the complaint with the prayer to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum along with compensation of Rs.80,000/- and costs of Rs.20,000/-.4.                Opposite party resisted the case contending that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The complainant was aware that the layout was approved by Grampanchayat and had purchased a plot at a very low price of Rs.75,000/- in 2004 and not Rs.1,25,000/- as claimed.  Complainant tried to construct the house after 9 years and was creating problems without consulting proper authority.  Granting of housing loan depends upon the personal earning capacity of the applicant.  Opposite party had never agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- and no letter was executed to that effect.  As complainant requested opposite party to purchase back the property due to his personal financial crises the opposite party agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- which was double the original price.  An amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid in case and two blank cheques were given with instructions to write Rs.50,000/- on each cheque.  But the complainant presented the cheques by writing as Rs.1,00,000/- with malafide intention and also did not turn up to execute the sale deed.  Hence, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.5.               During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant   filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.A1 to A8 marked while on behalf of the opposite party,  the Managing Director  filed his evidence affidavit and got Ex.B1 marked.6.              The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complainant as not maintainable before the Consumer Fora.7.                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.    The complainant contended that the District Forum failed to observe that Ex.A2 payment voucher and Ex.A5 agreement (undertaking) by the opposite party.    Opposite party by misrepresenting that the layout was approved by DTCP sold the plot the complainant which is a consumer dispute.  Hence, he prayed to set aside the orders of the District Forum and allow the appeal.8.                The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?  To what relief ?9.                While considering the pleading of the complainant and the opposite party   and their contentions it is not in dispute that the complainant was purchased a plot in admeasuring 218 sq.ayds in Saidhamam Venture at Deshmukhi Village of Nalgonda.  It is also not in dispute that the opposite party executed a registered sale deed dated 08.01.2004 in favour of the complainant.   It is disputed by the opposite party regarding payment made by the complainant towards purchase of the plot at Rs.1,25,000/-.  The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant paid Rs.75,000/-only towards the cost of the plot.       The contention of the complainant is that  as he intend to construct a house on the said plot an application was made to the officials and also for the housing loan but they rejected the same on the ground that the layout of unauthorized.10.              Now we see that whether the complainant has   locus standi to seek the remedy before the Consumer Forum or he has to move for specific relief   before the Civil Court.11.               It is the case of the complainant that after registration of plot on 08.01.2004 after 9 years, he intend to construct a house on the said plot, made an application before the competent authority and to the Bank for obtaining housing loan but the said authority and Bank rejected his application on the ground that the layout was unauthorized.  Then the complainant requested the opposite party vide letter dated 08.05.2013 to refund the amount paid by him.  The opposite party agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards advance in cash and gave two cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- each.  The remaining balance amount would be paid at the time of cancellation of sale deed.  The complainant when submitted the cheques bounced with  the reason of insufficient funds.  The transaction that took place between the complainant and the opposite party relates to immoveable property and thereby it is clearly proved that this matter relates to the immovable property for which the complainant ought to have approached the Civil Court for proper reliefs and   there was no sale of goods for consideration and the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction in this regard.12.              As per the details of the complaint, firstly, the opposite party misrepresented that the layout approved by DTCP secondly the cheques that were issued by the opposite party were bounced due to insufficient funds. If the cheques were bounced the remedy to the complainant is not before the Consumer Forum it attractsNI Actwhich he ought to have sought relief before competent court but not consumer Forum.  Because the transaction that took place between the complainant and the opposite party is not relates to the consumer Dispute.    There was no element of service at all as per the definition for service underSec.2(1) (o)where the transaction regarding the immovable property i.e. outright sale is not covered even though housing construction has been included by 1993 amendment and accordingly for the definition for Consumer underSec.2(1)(d)(ii)of the Consumer Protection Act. The irresistible conclusion should be that the complainant is not a consumer and thereby we are not concerned whether the layout was approved by DTCP or Grampanchayat or the cheques were bounced due to insufficient funds which are all subject matter of Civil/Criminal  Courts   not the consumer Forum which can be seen even from the observation of the Apex Court in UTI, Chandigarh Administration Case (II 2009 CPJ 1 (SC)where Their Lordship have observed  "A Consumer Forum will have jurisdiction only when: (i) the complainant is a Consumer as defined in Clause  (d) or a person specified in Clause (b) ofSection 2of the Act; (ii) the respondent is a trader as defined in Clause (q) or a provider of service as defined in Clause (o) ofSection 2of the Act; and (iii) the complaint relates to any of the matters specified in Clause (c) ofSection 2, for obtaining any relief provided by order under the Act. It therefore follows that where the complainant is not a consumer (or a person specified in Clause (b) ofSection 2) or where the respondent is not a trader or service provider or where the complaint does not relate to matters enumerated in Clause (c) ofSection 2of the Act, the Consumer Forum will have no jurisdiction either to entertain any complaint or grant any relief under the Act. The National Commission also had an opportunity to consider this kind of case, wherein it is held that the dispute raised if related to immovable property of the price chargeable was for the property, there could be

 

no consumer dispute since there was no sale of goods or any hiring of service for consideration.   For the above reasons, as rightly stated by the District Forum,   the complainant is not a consumer and there was no service undertaking or contract between the parties.   The finding recorded by the District Forum is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission.  Hence, the point framed at para No.8, supra, is answered accordingly against the appellant/complainant.In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the orders of the District Forum.  There shall be no order as to costs.  It is left open to the complainant to approach necessary Legal Forum relating to the complaint if so desired.PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER

 

Dated:05.06.2017

 

 

 

              [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA]  PRESIDENT 
     [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO]  JUDICIAL MEMBER