Kerala

Idukki

CC/177/2019

johncy Harilal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Devid S/o vareeth - Opp.Party(s)

17 Feb 2020

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :10/10/2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 17^th day of February 2020

Present :

SMT.ASAMOL P. PRESIDENT IN CHARGE

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO. 177/2019

Between

Complainant : Joncy Harilal,

Vrindhavanam,

Payikkuzhy, Ochira,

Kollam – 690 526.

And

Opposite Party : David, S/o Vareethe,

Parackal House,

Maekkadu P.O., Pin 683 589.,

Nedumbassery Village, Aluva Taluk,

Ernakulam District.

(By Adv: Lissy M.M. & Adv.Joseph I..J.)

 

O R D E R

SRI. AMPADY K.S, MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that,

 

1 . The complainant has received Rs.5 Lakhs (Five Lakhs 0nly) from the opposite party in 2017 by pledging her 7 cents property with house therein for her daughter's education purpose. In 2018, opposite party demanded the above amount and for returning this, she approached opposite party but he has refused to accept the amount. She came to know that purpose of opposite party is to seize the said property fetching high value. It is also averred that said property and house is now in a deteriorated condition and there is chance of damaging the furniture, inverter, fridge etc kept in the house.

 

2 . It is also stated by the complainant that prospective buyers were approached her and on request the opposite party hesitated to open the house. By this,

 

(Cont.....2)

 

-2-

those people were returned. Thereafter, complainant herself spent money for cleaning the surroundings of the house. On request to return the house and property, opposite party threatened and abused her.

 

3 . Another allegation in the complaint is that opposite party has used the pledged house for immoral purposes and on enquiry opposite party has threatened the complainant. Due to illegal possession of the property by the opposite party, she has suffered heavy loss and alleged unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Which resulted in irreparable loss and hardship to the complainant. She prayed for a direction to opposite party to return the concerned property and house on receiving Rs. 5 Lakhs, not to disturb the complainant for sale of said property and house and also to return the said house and property in the same condition given by her.

 

4 . On receipt of the notice, the opposite party entered appearance and filed petition regarding maintainability of the complaint. In this petition, it is specifically contented that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since it is purely civil in nature. The cause of action is based on a contract. As per terms of agreement between the parties, the opposite party is entitled to use the said building from 11/07/2017 to 10/07/2022 and consideration therefor was received by the complainant. If the complainant has any grievance regarding the contract, she has to approach civil court for redressal of her grievance. Opposite party prayed for dismissing the complaint as not maintainable.

 

5 . Complainant is regularly absent on the posting dates from 08/11/2019. Notice for personal appearance is also ordered on 05/12/2019. Registered notice is not accepted by the complainant even after intimation given by postal authority. So the article is returned with endorsement “RTS”. Hence the notice is treated as duly served as per S. 28 A(3) of CP Act 1986. The case is posted on 03/01/2020 and 14/01/2020. But the complainant did not respond.

 

(Cont.....3)

 

 

-3-

 

6 . Complainant produced copies of land tax receipt No.4602242 dated 11/07/2017 of Rajakumai Village office, building tax receipt No.D.1333379 dated 31/10/2017 of Bysonvalley Gramapanchayath, possession and non -attachment certificate dated 23/10/2017 and location map dated 11/10/2017 issued by Rajakumari village officer.

 

7 . Opposite party produced copy of otti agreement dated 11/07/2017 between the complainant and opposite party.

 

8 . Since the opposite party has raised objection regarding maintainability of the complaint, it is taken as preliminary issue to be decided.

 

9 . We have examined the contentions of both parties and perused copy of documents produced from both sides. It is seen from the above otti agreement that complainant has received Rs.5 Lakhs by cash as well as through cheque, receipt whereof is acknowledged by the complainant. As per terms of above otti agreement, it is seen that said property and house is given to the possession of the opposite party till 10/07/2022. An analysis of the contentions and documents reveals that complainant has failed to establish that she is a consumer as defined in the CP Act 1986.

 

10 . On the other hand , the contentions of the opposite party seems to have force in the eye of law. Nature of agreement and terms and conditions reveal that transaction is purely civil in nature and it is to be decided by appropriate civil court.

 

 

 

 

 

(Cont.....4)

 

-4-

 

11 . From the discussion made above, this Forum finds that the present complaint is not maintainable under CP Act 1986. In these circumstances, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. Order accordingly.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17^th day of February, 2020.

 

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. , PRESIDENT -IN -CHARGE

APPENDIX

 

Nil

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT