Sripathi U vs Vicent Dâ?TAlmeida

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.08.2012 passed by the learned Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ''the State Commission '') in F.A. No.1501/2012 â? " Dr. Sripathi U v. Vincent D ''Almeida and Anr. by which appeal at admission stage was dismissed and order of District Forum dismissing complaint was affirmed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant purchased two shop room premises from the opposite party/respondent on 28.3.2000 for carrying on business of dentist and opposite party executed sale deed in favour of the complainant. Opposite party also collected Rs.20,000/- from the complainant towards maintenance of the building at the time of registration but opposite party failed to maintain building. There was poor maintenance of electric meter, water pump, generator, etc. and complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.60,000/- for installing new electricity board, Rs.12,000/- for maintenance of water pump and Rs.45,000/- towards generator. In spite of notice dated 2.11.2009, opposite party did not pay the amount, hence, complaint was filed on 30.4.2010. Opposite party resisted claim and submitted that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and complaint is time barred, hence, complaint may be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint being time barred and appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned State Commission vide impugned order.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

ADMITTEDLY , property was purchased by the petitioner on 28.3.2000 and as per averment in the complaint, petitioner paid Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance of the building to the opposite party at that time but this complaint has been filed after 10 years of incurring expenditure which is clearly time barred and learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation and learned State Commission has also not committed any error in dismissing appeal at admission stage. Apparently, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties and if petitioner has incurred any expenses towards improvement of facilities he should have filed Civil Suit for recovery of expenditure incurred on facilities.

CONSEQUENTLY , petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.