CHIDAMBARAM CO-OP BUILDING SOCIETY Vs. MOHAMED YOUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the very allegations made in the complaint it is clear that the Fixed Deposit Receipt represented part of the sale consideration. It is also seen that a sum of Rs.2,79,865 was accounted for by way of FDR in the name of the complainant. With regard to the sale transaction in question, the contention of the opposite party/appellant is that there was collusion between the then Special Officer Puttusamy and the complainant and that the said Pattusamy had entered into sale transactions with the complainant for exorbitant amounts and this came to light subsequently and action has been taken against the said Pattusamy and a criminal case is pending against him in C. C. I. W.5/97. The complainant is the seller of immovable property. The Fixed Deposits represented part of sale consideration. Therefore, on the complainant's own showing, the sum of Rs.2,79,865 is shown as part of sale consideration. The sale deed is dated 14.3.1996. The question of hiring of services by the complainant of the opposite party will not arise. It is as such a complaint to recover the amount due by way of sale consideration. Hence, it cannot be maintained under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Further, the sale consideration was for the purpose of selling plots to the public viz. , either the members of the Society or to any third party who becomes a member of the Society. The complainant has sold his land to the Society and the Society wanted to plot out the land and sell it to its members. Thus, the transaction is a commercial transaction entered into between the complainant and the opposite party and as a part of the transaction and towards part of sale consideration, a sum of Rs.2,79,865 was paid by way of FDR. Therefore, it is a part of sale consideration relating to a commercial activity and it is not an independent money transaction between the complainant and the opposite party. Therefore, in the circumstances, it follows that the complaint cannot be maintained before a Consumer Forum. Moreover, the opposite parties have raised a plea of collusion and fraud between the complainant and the then Special Officer. In that context it becomes necesary to consider the question of fraud and collusion and whether the properties were purchased by the Society for a hiked-up price and whether in the part-performance of such transaction a sum of Rs.2,79,865 was treated as part of sale consideration which represented the Fixed Deposit. Therefore, these matters of fraud and collusion, questions of necessity and valdity of the same can all be considered only by a Civil Court where alone parties will have an opportunity to adduce elaborate oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, in that view of the matter as well, if considered, it will be clear that this Forum has no jurisdiction. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the lower Forum, therefore, cannot be maintained. That apart, the lower Forum erred in granting compensation as well as interest which is against the decision of the National Commission. Moreover, the complainant is in the shoes of the seller. He is not a buyer. He is not hiring the services of the opposite parties. Therefore, a seller cannot be termed as a consumer nor can assume the status of a consumer. Therefore, in that view of the matter as well, it has to be held that the complaint is not maintainable. Hence, we have no hesitation in disturbing the verdict of the lower Forum.

(2.) Consequently this appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.250 setting aside the order passed by the lower Forum. The complaint will stand dismissed but without costs. However, it is open to the complainant to move the Civil Court for necessary relief if so advised and subject to the question of limitation, if any.