DADDYS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS Vs. S KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore ('State Commission' for short). By its order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore ('District Forum' for short) by which the District Forum had accepted the complaint of the respondent in terms of the following order:-

(2.) Briefly stated, the respondent herein who is owner of a plot measuring 1500 Sq. ft. situated in Anekal Taluk of Bangalore urban district entered into an agreement with the petitioner herein, for purchasing the said plot on 23.02.2005 and also a joint development agreement with the petitioner for the development of the said site. The sale deed was signed on 31.3.2005 and the respondent herein paid entire sale consideration of about Rs. 25,00,000/- to the petitioner being the sale consideration of the site as well as towards the construction of a residential flat at the site. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner agreed to hand over the property to him on 26.12.2007 and both the parties agreed to certain specifications to be followed in the construction but it was alleged that the petitioner failed to adhere to some of the specifications which led to the rain water flowing into the premises during the monsoon, i. e. , in the month of August 2008 and the water stagnated up to the height of about 3 feet over and above the ground level. Even little rainfall would result in flowing of water towards the villa. Feeling inconvenienced by the improper construction of the house, the deficiency was brought to the notice of the petitioner initially orally and later by a letter dated 18.12.2008 but without response. After issuing a legal notice, the consumer complaint in question eventually was filed by the respondent praying for direction to the OP/petitioner to provide an alternate villa in the layout of the same measurement at a height where the rain water does not stagnate and also to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of compensation. The OP/petitioner resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that in case of any dispute between the parties, the party concerned should approach a civil court of jurisdiction and hence the complaint filed against it was not maintainable. After considering the evidence placed before it and hearing the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint in terms of the aforesaid order.

(3.) We have heard Mr. C. B. Gururaj, Advocate for the petitioner and have perused the record placed before us. It is contended by learned counsel that the State Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate that the District Forum erred in accepting the complaint on the basis of the report given by the Court Commissioner even though the petitioner had raised the contention that because of the existence of a Joint Development Agreement between the petitioner and the respondent, the Parties in case of a dispute being raised in regard to the agreement will have to approach the Civil Court. It was also submitted by learned counsel that the construction was done according to the specifications given by the respondent and the constructed villa was handed over to the respondent in the year 2007 and hence the District Forum ought to have appreciated that the dispute in question was being raised by the respondent after lapse of one and a half years of the handing over of the constructed villa and three years after the signing of the agreement only with a view to harass the petitioner and extract some wrongful gains from it and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the complaint be dismissed.