Date of filing: | 04.06.2022 |
Date of disposal: | 09.08.2023 |
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 09.08.2023
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT
Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1195/2022
Smt. Poornima, W/o.J.N.Indrakumar Jain, Aged About 38 years, R/at: Kalasa Hobli, Kalasa Post, Mavinakere Village, Kalasa Horanadu Road, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagalur District-577124. (Advocate – Sri.Srinkanth.N.V) | …..Appellant/s. |
V/s |
1) Sri. K.Raju, S/o. Late Kanthu Poojari, Aged About 63 years, R/at: Annapurna Nilaya, Mahammaya Cloth Store, Kalasa Main Road, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagalur District-577124. (Advocate – Sri.S.N.Bhat) 2) Surendra, S/o. Kalase Gowda, Aged About 39 years, R/at: Kademane Idakani Village, Hemmakki Post, Kalasa Hobli, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagalur District-577124. (Notice served – Remained Absent) | …..Respondent/s. |
ORDER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT
01. The opposite party No.1 has filed this Appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the impugned order dated: 29.03.2022 passed in C.C. No.32/2021 by the Chikkamagalur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
02. The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the commission below.
03. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for Appellant and Respondent No.1.
04. The District Commission after enquiring into the matter had allowed the Consumer Complaint directing the opposite party No.1 to handover/to put in possession of property bearing No.150900400300220351, Flat No.A8 situated at Mavinakere Village measuring East-West 6.4008 and North-South 17.683 to the complainant and further opposite party No.2 is ordered to be evicted from Flat No.A8. Further opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The opposite party No.1 shall handover the Flat No.A8 to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the total payable amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum till realization.
05. Aggrieved by this order, opposite party No.1 has filed this Appeal.
06. Perused the impugned order and the grounds urged in the Appeal. The brief facts of the case is that, on 22.11.2019 complainant purchased property bearing No.150900400300220351 i.e., Flat No.A8 situated at Mavinakere Village, Kalasa Gramapanchayath, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagalur District, measuring in meters East-West: 6.4008 and North-South 17.683 from opposite party No.1 under registered sale deed for a sale consideration of Rs.24,00,000/-. The allegation of the complainant is that, though opposite party No.1 and her husband claiming that, they have sold the property bearing No.A9 in favour of complainant, the opposite party No.1 without handing-over Flat No.A8, has put opposite party No.2 in possession of the same and that apart opposite party No.1 is pressurizing the complainant to reside in Flat No.A9. It is also alleged that, opposite party No.2 while purchasing Flat No.A9 had borrowed loan from Kalasa Bank and has not made repayment and if at all Flat No.8 is brought in to auction, complainant will be put to huge loss. If any unlawful activities take place in Flat bearing No.A8 the complainant will be held responsible to such activities. The opposite party No.1 has not acted upon as per the recitals of registered sale deed pertains to Flat No.A8 and thereby she committed deficiency of service.
07. The grounds urged by the Appellant are that, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is not in accordance with law on the ground that, the impugned order was an ex-parte order. The appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to contest the complaint. Due to medical issues i.e., Typhoid fever and as there was fear of attack of Covid the appellant could not be present on the day i.e., 27.07.2021. The appellant could not able to travel from Kalasa Village to Chikkamagaluru District Forum which is about 100 kms journey during covid time. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to set aside as the possession of Flat No.A8 was handed-over to the complainant on the date of registration itself and after lapse of 2 years the said complaint was filed without any justifiable reason. As per the sale deed executed in favour of complainant property bearing No.A8 was clearly indicated as per Ex.P.3.
08. The Learned Counsel for opposite party No.1 has argued that, there is no deficiency of service or delay in handing-over the alleged Flat No.A8 to the complainant and in fact the possession of Flat No.A8 was already handed-over to the complainant on the date of registration itself and the District Commission had failed to consider the same while passing its impugned order and hence sought for remand of the consumer complaint to consider afresh by giving opportunity to both parties.
09. In view of the above submission made by both the parties, we are of the considered view that, for the bonafide reasons, the opposite party No.1 being a senior citizen could not able to attend the District Commission proceedings and without ascertaining the true facts the order becomes one sided or an unilateral. Hence we proceed to allow the Appeal by remanding back the case to the District Commission for reconsideration by affording opportunity to both parties and with a direction to the District Commission to dispose-off the same as early as possible within three months.
10. The amount kept in deposit by the appellant shall be transferred to District Commission for needful.
11. Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.
LADY MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
KNMP*
