Kerala

Idukki

CC/78/2020

Daisy Sebastian - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shainy dominic - Opp.Party(s)

Adv: k b Selvam

25 May 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :18.6.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the day of May, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.78/2020

Between

Complainant : Daisy Sebastian,

Panachinanickal House,

KothaikunnuBhagam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv: K.B. Selvam)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Shainy, W/o. Dominic,

Pullattu House,

Mannathara, Perumthotty P.O.,

Upputhodu, Idukki.

2. Dominic,

Pullattu House,

Mannathara, Perumthotty P.O.,

Upputhodu, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: George Thomas)

3. The Branch Manager,

IDCB (Kerala Bank),

Thopramkudy Branch,

Thopramkudy P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv: C.K. Babu)

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Complaint averments are briefly discussed here under : (cont....2)

• 2 -

Complainant has 0.5240 hectare agricultural land which she had obtained from her father-in-law, situated in Vathikkudy Village at Mannathara kara. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are agricultural labourers who used to do work in the land of relatives of complainant. Both were staying in a residential building of the complainant on the basis of a rent agreement executed by them. In between 1997 and 2010, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had worked in the aforesaid property of complainant as well. During this time they became very intimate with complainant and utilising their intimacy, they had, fraudulently obtained patta for the aforesaid property of complainant. Complainant had, upon coming to know about this, arrived at a conciliation with 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and as per the agreement arrived during conciliation, both had agreed to hand over the patta to her. However, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had created false documents regarding property. In May 2019, complainant had got wind of this and she had filed O.S 38/2019 before Munsiff’s Court at Idukki, with regard to the said cause of action. Other cases are also pending before the same Court with regard to patta for the land obtained by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Now complainant had come to know that 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had taken a loan from the 3^rd opposite party bank pledging aforesaid 0.5240 hectare agricultural land owned by complainant, utilising the patta fraudulently obtained by them. They had not repaid the loan. 3^rd opposite party is taking steps to recover the loan by proceeding against the said property. Hence complainant prays for a direction against 3^rd opposite party from not taking any recovery steps against the property and also for a direction to get Rs.10 lakhs or the loan amount obtained by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties from them as compensation. She also seeks a direction against 3^rd opposite party to recover the loan amount from assets and personal belongings of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and not against the property covered by the patta fraudulently created, concerning the property owned by her.

Complaint was admitted and upon notice, opposite parties 1 to 3 have appeared. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed joint written version contending that suit is not maintainable. According to them, dispute herein is the subject matter of O.S 38/2019, O.S 47/2019 and O.S 60/2019 which are pending before Munsiff’s Court at Idukki. Apart from those, criminal cases are also pending. According to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, rent agreement mentioned in the complaint is forged document and is questioned in the Civil suit pending before the Munsiff’s Court. There was no conciliation talk or (cont...3)

• 3 -

any agreement to hand over patta to complainant. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are well within their rights to pledge the property and to obtain loan on its basis as the property exclusively belongs to them. There is no consumer dispute as per the pleadings. Hence petition is to be dismissed.

Third opposite party had also filed separate written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, since complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act. No deficiency in service is alleged against 3^rd opposite party. There is no privity of contract between complainant and 3^rd opposite party. Complaint is experimental one and same is to be dismissed with cost.

After filing of written version, case was posted for evidence, after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides to take steps. Complainant had not turned up for evidence, despite availing repeated opportunities. It is seen that a petition was filed to keep the case in abeyance under Section 151 of CPC, since 3 Civil Suits are pending before the Munsiff’s Court at Idukki, with regard to the same subject matter. Same was dismissed. Since complainant has not tendered any evidence, able counsel for 3^rd opposite party also submitted that O.P’s are also not tendering any evidence. As far as 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are concerned, there was no representation from their side. Hence evidence was closed. We have heard the learned counsel for 3^rd opposite party who was present. Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1. Whether the petition is maintainable ?

2. Order to be passed ?

Point No.1 :

Even as per complaint averments, we find no allegations of deficiency in service as against 3^rd opposite party. Infact allegations are against 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and these are regarding forgery and pledging of land illegally. These are not matters which come under the jurisdiction of this Commission as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no privity of contract between complainant and 3^rd opposite party. No consumer-service provider relationship exists between them, even as per the pleadings addressed in complaint. That being so, we find that reliefs prayed for, by the complainant (cont.....4)

• 4 -

are not to be granted, as complaint is not maintainable. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No.2 :

In the result, this complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. It is seen from the averments that there is no consumer-trader-service provider relationship between complainant and opposite parties. This appears to be a frivolous complaint filed with the intention of procrastinating the proceedings pending before the Civil Court between complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 on the other side. She has no cause of action against opposite parties either. Hence we are of the view that complaint is to be dismissed by awarding litigation cost of Rs.2000/- each to opposite parties 1 to 3.

In the result, complaint is dismissed and complainant is directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/- each to opposite parties 1 to 3 within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this Order. If not, opposite parties 1 to 3 are entitled to realise the same from complainant in accordance with law. Interim Order of Stay / Injunction passed shall stand vacated.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the day of May, 2022

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

 

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER