Karnataka State Consumer Commission Dismisses Compensation Plea Over Demolished Property, Says Civil Dispute Not Maintainable Under Consumer Law
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Divyashree M. (Lady Member), dismissed a complaint seeking compensation for the demolition of a building by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The Commission held that the dispute was civil in nature and did not fall within the scope of the Consumer...
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Divyashree M. (Lady Member), dismissed a complaint seeking compensation for the demolition of a building by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The Commission held that the dispute was civil in nature and did not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, as no consumer-service provider relationship existed between the parties.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Sri. Murugan claimed ownership and possession of Property No. 20(21), situated at Hennur Village, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 40 x 30 feet. The complainant purchased the property from Sri. D. Raghottamacharya, the father of the opposite party, through a power of attorney executed on 22.07.1991. He further stated that he had already been put in possession of the property under an agreement dated 02.04.1989.
The complainant stated that he constructed a residential building on the property after spending nearly Rs.20 lakh and had been regularly paying taxes and electricity charges. BDA demolished the structure on 10.09.2014 and took possession of the property without prior notice.
Aggrieved by the demolition, the complainant sought an alternative site and compensation from the BDA and also approached the High Court of Karnataka through a writ petition seeking consideration of his representation. During the pendency of those proceedings, he discovered that the opposite party had filed and later withdrawn a writ petition concerning 3 acres and 20 guntas of land in the same survey number, leading the complainant to believe that the opposite party had received compensation from the BDA.
Aggrieved , the complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking a direction against the opposite party to pay Rs. 40,00,000 as compensation, along with Rs. 50,000 towards mental agony and litigation expenses.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The opposite party contended that the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Commission. He argued that he was only one among the legal heirs of his deceased father and that other legal representatives had not been impleaded. He denied the alleged sale transaction, execution of the GPA, affidavit and construction expenses claimed by the complainant. It was further argued that the dispute involved civil property rights and contractual claims beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission.
Observations & Decision
The Commission dismissed the complainant's complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction. The Commission observed that the complainant's claim was based on an unregistered Agreement of Sale and a General Power of Attorney, which could not legally transfer ownership rights. It further observed that tax receipts and electricity bills only indicated possession and were not proof of title. The Commission noted that disputes relating to ownership and declaration of title fall within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and cannot be decided by a Consumer Commission.
Further, the Commission observed that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had demolished the building and taken possession of the property. Therefore, any person claiming compensation in relation to the acquisition proceedings ought to seek relief directly against the BDA.
The Commission also found that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer under the Act. It was observed that there was no consumer-service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. Therefore, no allegation of deficiency in service could be maintained against the opposite party.
The Commission held that the dispute was purely civil in nature and involved questions relating to title and contractual rights. Since there was no consumer-service provider relationship and the Consumer Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide civil property disputes, the complaint was dismissed.
Case Title: MURUGAN VS D. SUDHINDRA RAO
Case No: SC/29/CC/52/2016