AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is filed by the Complainant against the order dated 31.07.2019 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No.29 of 2014, whereby his Complaint was dismissed.
It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the plot in question which was given by the Respondent to the Appellant had infact been acquired in the year 1997 and this fact was concealed by the Appellant. Hence, the whole agreement to purchase was with fraud. On these contentions, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
The admitted facts of the case are that the Appellant had entered into an agreement to purchase a plot with the Respondents on 12.01.1998. Thereafter, the said plot was handed over to the Appellant and a Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed was also executed and registered on 12.07.2004.
In the year 2014, Appellant filed the Complaint before the State Commission wherein he alleged that the plot had been acquired by the Government. Hence, he alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent and claimed ₹25 Lakhs, the market value of the plot/alternative suitable property of the same dimensions, ₹5 Lakhs as compensation/damages for deficiency in service.
The State Commission vide its order held that acquisition proceedings under KIDB Act had started in the year 2007. It is also admitted by the Appellant that a Writ Petition was pending before the High Court of Karnataka against the acquisition which was subsequently dismissed by the High Court. The only issue is whether the acquisition of the land by the Government which was in possession of the Appellant, as a result of executing the Sale Deed in the year 2004 pursuant to an agreement dated 12.01.1998, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent or whether the Appellant is still a consumer under the Act claiming validity of the agreement with the Opposite Party. Section 2 C defines the Complaint as under:
Section-2 (c) "complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complain¬ant that-
(i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider;
(ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him; suffer from one or more defects;
(iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect;
(iv) a trader or service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the service mentioned in the com-plaint a price in excess of the price -
(a) fixed by or under any law for the time being in force
(b) displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods ;
(c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force;
(d) agreed between the parties;
(v) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used or being offered for sale to the public,--
(A) in contravention of any standards relating to safety of such goods as required to be complied with, by or under any law for the time being in force;
(B) if the trader could have known with due diligence that the goods so offered are unsafe to the public"
Section 2(b) also defines Complainant as under:
"complainant" means-
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1of 1956)or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State Government,
(iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consum¬ers having the same interest;
(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint."
The conjoint reading of both the provisions clearly show that a Complaint can be filed for deficiency in service if the consumer has an existing right under the service contract to claim deficiency in service. Following the finding in the earlier decision in 2562 of 2012 Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhji (Radha Swami) & Anr, this Commission in the case of M/s Honda Car vs. Jatinder Singh Madan has clearly laid down the following proposition of law as under: -
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as during pendency of appeal car has been sold by Respondent No. 1 to Amritpal Singh on 13.4.2010 and further it has been transferred to Rajinder Bawa on 17.6.2011 without permission from State Commission, Respondent No. 1 remains no more consumer under the and not entitled to any relief. Perusal of copy of registration certificate proves fact of transfer of vehicle by complainant to Amritpal Singh and in turn to Rajinder Bawa.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent no. 1 also admitted sale of vehicle. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has nowhere submitted that vehicle was transferred during pendency of appeal with the permission of State Commission.
(Emphasis supplied)
In the present case, admittedly, the service contract which was dated 12.01.1998 does not now exist. After execution of the Registered Sale Deed, the earlier agreement under which the respondents promised to provide certain services, stands terminated. I find no merit in the present Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed in limine.