N ARJUNAN Vs. A NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the complainants is that the 1st opposite party is a Land Promoter. He sold a plot to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party offered to sell that plot to the complainant. The sale price was fixed at Rs.18,00,000/-. An agreement was entered into between the parties and the complain-ants paid an advance of Rs.5,50,000/-. Subsequently it transpired that the plot did not belong to the 1st opposite party and therefore he could not pass any title under the sale deed executed by him in favour of the 2nd opposite party. The land was a Vandi Puramboke land. According to the complainant the 2nd opposite party misrepresented to the complainants that the land belonged to the 1st opposite party from whom he purchased and therefore he was the owner of the land. According to the complainants the said representation by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for ordering the opposite parties for refund of the amount of Rs.8,26,200/- and interest thereon at 18% p. a. and also a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

(2.) The 2 opposite parties have filed separate written versions. They have raised a common defence excepting that the 1st opposite party has stated that he is not a necessary party to the proceedings. They contend that it is not correct to say that the plot in question is a Puramboke land but the land did belong to the 1st opposite party which has been purchased by the 2nd opposite party. Therefore there was no misrepresentation as regards the title. Thus there was no question of deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. Even otherwise as regards the allegations made in the complaint no question of deficiency arises because it is simply anagreement for sale of immovable property. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) After hearing both sides and perusing the pleadings we are quite satisfied with the contentions raised by the opposite parties. We find no material placed before us for holding that there was misrepresentation by the opposite parties and that the land is a Puramboke land and it does not belong to the opposite parties. In these circumstances we are of the view that the complaint cannot be maintained in this Commission. The question of misrepresentation cannot be decided in the Consumer Commission since it is a matter that has to be established by elaborate evidence.