S.G. Shankar vs U. Venkata Raja Reddy

V.K.Jain, J.

The complainant/respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner for the purchase of a plot of land for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. The parties allegedly executed an agreement dated 08.02.2000, incorporating the terms of the aforesaid transaction. The case of the complainant/respondent is that though the possession of the plot was delivered to him, its sale deed was not executed in its favour. The complainant/respondent therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking execution of the Sale Deed of his plot in his favour.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner who denied having executed any agreement with the complainant and claimed that he did not even know the complainant. He also alleged that he did not even have a title to the property described in the agreement.

The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken as correct, the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. In support of his contention, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganeshlal Vs. Shyam (2014) 14SCC 773.

In Ganeshlal (supra), the appellant had agreed to sell a plot of land to the respondent by virtue of an agreement executed between them. The appellant having failed to hand over possession of the plot, the complainant filed a consumer complaint. The District Forum, State Commission as well as this Commission, having ruled in favour of the complainant, the appellant approached the Apex Court by way of an appeal. It was contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the complainant was not a consumer since a plot of land simpliciter was agreed to be sold. Accepting the contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

It is submitted that failure to hand over possession of the plot of land simpliciter cannot come within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, State Commission or National Commission. We quite see merit in this submission of Mr Lambat, particularly having seen the definition of "deficiency" as quoted above. We may, however, note that when it comes to "housing construction", the same has been specifically covered under the definition of "service" by an amendment inserted by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18-6-1993. That being the position, as far as the housing construction by sale of flats by builders or societies is concerned, that would be on a different footing. On the other hand, where a sale of plot of land simpliciter is concerned, and if there is any complaint, the same would not be covered under the said Act.

Having noted this submission of Mr Lambat, we must, however, record that he has fairly pointed out that subsequent to the order of the State Commission, the appellant has executed the sale deed, and the plot of land concerned has been handed over to the respondent. That being so, although we accept the legal submission made on behalf of the appellant, he cannot be granted any relief, namely, to dismiss the complaint which was filed in the District Consumer Forum which has now been entertained and acted upon by the conduct of the appellant himself. The appeal is therefore disposed of with these observations.

A perusal of the agreement relied upon by the complainant would show that the transaction between the parties envisaged sale of a plot of land to the complainant without the petitioner rendering any services to him. This was not a transaction where a builder develops an undeveloped piece of land, provides services such as sewerage, water, electricity etc. and then delivers possession of a developed plot to the buyer. In the present case, no services at all were required to be rendered by the petitioner to the complainant.

Therefore, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. The impugned orders therefore, cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The complaint filed by the respondent is hereby dismissed with liberty to the complainant to avail such remedy other than a consumer complaint as may be available to him in law for the redressal of his grievances. The revision petition stands disposed of.