ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. This is a case wherein a Private Limited Company had issued Grandiose advertisement such as
For less than the price of a handkerchief i/on can buy a square feet of farm land at Bliss Resort.
You can watch your Rs. 75,000 per Tree Growing Rs. 37.50 lakhs per Jivan Saathi Member Rs. 75.00 lakhs for Royal Garden (Mega B) Members.
alluring the gullible investors to invest their hard earned money in their company and later on duping them by neither providing them the blissful plantations nor refunding the principal amount paid by them.
Case of the complainant in brief:
2. The opposite party M/s. Bliss Plantations and Hill Resorts Pvt. Ltd., had floated amongst others a scheme known as ‘Mega B-Royal Garden II Scheme’. Under the said scheme, for an initial payment of Rs. 40,000 and 72 monthly instalments of Rs. 4,000 each, prospective participants in the said scheme could purchase from the opposite party 9600 squre feet of f arm land at Sriperambadur, Tamil Nadu on which the opposite party promised to grow various kinds of fruit trees or alternatively, 100 teak trees. The scheme known as Mega B-Royal Garden II Scheme. The complainant participated in the scheme and time-to-time made payments from 2.11.1995 to 22.10.1996 totalling Rs. 1,85,600, for which the opposite party issued the receipts. In October 1996 the complainant visited Sripermbadur to check the progress and growth of the trees and found that teak saplings were of negligible height and appeared to have not been maintained at all. The plantation is situated in a totally inaccessible area, etc. Accordingly, the complainant instructed the bank concerned vide letter dated 30.10.1996 to stop payment of cheque for Rs. 50,400. As the opposite party did not refund the money invested he filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban District. The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the ‘complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,35,200′ to the complainant with interest at 10% per annum from 22.10.1996 till payment with costs of Rs. 10,000’.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission. After hearing the parties the State Commission dismissed the appeal.
4. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the opposite party has filed this petition before us, wherein he has urged the following grounds:
(a) Local Commissioner appointed by the District Forum to inspect the property of the petitioner in the presence of the complainant where he has clearly identified the property. As the sketch and plan were misplaced and re-prepared by the Village Administrative Officer the same are produced along with the Revision Petition.
(b) The complainants have not paid the full consideration for teak plantation and as they have purchased land for commercial purpose and hence they are not consumers. They should have filed a suit before the appropriate Civil Court.
(c) The Commissioner who is a Senior Scientist in the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore has submitted in his report that 466 teak trees planted in the plot apart from other trees.
(d) As the plot was in the State of Tamil Nadu, it does not come under the purview of the Bangalore District Forum.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that a perusal of the local Commissioner’s report indicates that the local Commissioner has not mentioned either the survey number or the Khasra number of the property. He has not given any details for identification of the property i.e., boundaries of the property, etc. The revision petitioner has not filed the title deed of the property before the District Forum. He has filed the same only here. Findings:
6. The issue of grandiose advertisements mentioned earlier have not been disputed by the revision petitioner.
7. The Local Commissioner has not mentioned any survey number or Khasra number or the boundaries of the property inspected by him. The District Forum order mentions this in the following words:
If we go through the report of the Commissioner, nowhere he has referred to the survey number. In the absence of survey number and merely because he noticed that teak trees and other trees on the land, it cannot be said this land was first of all acquired by the O.P.
8. Further the petitioner has given specious arguments that the sketch and plan, etc. of the property were misplaced and hence they were re-prepared by the Village Administrative Officer. Accordingly, they are produced before us now along with a separate petition/ affidavit. This clearly indicates that these records were not before the lower Fora.
9. These properties pertain to title deed of 5.84 acres of land which was purchased for Rs. 1,16,800 and there is another title deed of 1.52 acres purchased for Rs. 45,000. To a pointed question by this Commission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not clarify as to what is the total amount collected for plantation scheme and Hill Resort Scheme as a result of the advertisements mentioned earlier and what should have been total extent of land assigned for this purpose vis-a-vis two small pieces of land for which title deed have been produced before us at this belated stage. The revision petitioner has urged other grounds like, the District Forum, Bangalore does not have the jurisdiction. It is not disputed that money was collected at Bangalore and the opposite party has its branch office at J.C. Road, Bangalore, said District Forum had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The petitioner has also said that the complainant has not paid the amount in full. When the complainant has seen that there is no worthwhile development in the so called area reserved for the purpose, he is well within his right in not making further payment. Hence, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Fora below. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 20,000 as costs to the respondent.
