Date of Filing : 16.02.2016 Date of Disposal : 06.07.2022 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 06^th DAY OF JULY 2022 PRESENT Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO.351/2016

1. The President National Technological Institutions Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., No.G-5, No.51, Palace Orchard Apartments

6th Cross, 9th Main Road RMV Extension, Bangalore-80.

2. The Secretary National Technological Institutions Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., No.G-5, No.51, Palace Orchard Apartments, 6th Cross, 9th Main Road, RMV Extension Bangalore 560080 ..Appellant/s (By Sri.Harishkumar.M.S, Advocate)

Vs Rajeshwari S Ingleshwar W/o Late Shivananda S Ingleshwar Aged about 54 Years No.97/2, Bhima Jyothi, HBCS Ltd., Kamalanagar, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore–79. ..Respondent/s (By Sri.Viswanath Sabarad, Advocate)

O R D E R

BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP.1 &

2/Appellants aggrieved by the order dtd.29.12.2015 passed in CC/320/2011 on the file of Bengaluru 2^nd Addl., District Forum.

2. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of appeal and heard the learned counsel for the Appellants.

3. This is an appeal pending since 2016. None appears for the Respondents. As such, we have taken to decide this appeal on merits examining the appeal papers.

4. The Complainant/Respondent herein raised consumer complaint U/s.12 of CPA 1986 to deliver the possession of site bearing no.202/24, measuring 40x60 sq.ft situated at Kothihosahalli village, Yelahanka hobli, Bengaluru north taluk under the name and style of Rajeev Gandhi Nagar NTI layout, 2^nd phase, Bengaluru or in the alternative to allot and register and deliver the possession of the alternative site. This was contested by the OPs/Appellants and the Forum below held an enquiry, thereby passed impugned order directing OPs to allot, register and deliver possession of the alternative site at their own cost to the Complainant within 6 months and awarded Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. Learned counsel for the Appellants submit that Forum below has failed to perceive the relief sought by the Complainant/Respondent, proceed to pass impugned order, contrary to the facts and law and to find support placed decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Civil Appeal no.331/2007 dtd.26.09.2013 in the case of Ganeshlal vs Shyam, wherein it was held in para 5 ………..The jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum under Section 11 of the Act is to entertain a complaint and as seen above, complaint is defined in a particular manner, and primarily it is with respect to the deficiency in making available the goods and services. The term ’deficiency’ is also defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act which reads as follows:

’deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.’

In para 6 it was held as “That being the position, as far as the housing construction by sale of flats by builders or societies is concerned, that would be on a different footing. On the other hand, where a sale of plot of land simpliciter is concerned, and if there is any complaint, the same would not be covered under the said Act.” In para 7 it was held as “….. the Appellant has executed the sale deed, and the concerned plot of land has been handed over to the Respondent. That being so, although we accept the legal submission made on behalf of the Appellant, he cannot be granted any relief, namely to dismiss the complaint which was filed in the District Commission Forum which has now been entertained and acted upon by the conduct of the Appellant himsel