Complaint filed on: 06-09-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 10-03-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF MARCH, 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB.(Spl)., LADY MEMBER

Consumer Complaint No.130/2022 

Bhanuprakash D

Bin C.Dasappa, No.75, Gayathri

Nilaya, Aralimaradapalya Main Road,

IDSMT Layout, Sira Gate,

Tumakuru-572 106.

(In person)

V/s

The Commissioner, Tumakuru Municipal

Commission, Tumakuru.

(By Sri.G.Nagaraju, Advocate)

:O R D E R:

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, LADY MEMBER

This complaint was filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party with a prayer to direct the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% and penal interest in total Rs.10,34,436/- and Rs.5,50,000/- towards compensation, in all Rs.15,64,436/- and also prays to direct the OP to allot shop No.60 which was stands for him in the earlier bid by receiving present deposit of Rs.50,000/-.

2.       It is the case of complainant that the OP has given advertisement on 15.09.2012 in the news paper regarding public auction of shops which were constructed in the Private Bus Stand.  The complainant further contended that in 122 stores, store Nos.90, 60, 30 and 120 were reserved for Schedule Tribes and as per the condition of auction, the complainant has deposited Rs.2,00,000/- and there were two person in the final bid and store No.60 was bided for him in the auction and thereafter the Commissioner was stopped the auction.   Hence, the complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing writ petition and the Hon’ble High Court was ordered to re-auction.  But the OP has not conducted re-auction and on 31.12.2020, the OP has auctioned store No.60 for general category.  The complainant further contended that due to Corona he was submitted application on 09.05.2022 requesting to allot shop No.60 and the OP on 15.06.2022 given an endorsement to participate in the auction even though the shop No.60 was already allotted to general category.   This act of the OP clearly violates Hon’ble High Court order and also shows their deficiency in service.  The complainant further contended that on 17.08.2022 the complainant requested the OP through request letter to return the deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- which was deposited on 28.09.2012 along with interest @ 18% and penal interest, but he OP did not reply.  Hence, without any alternative, the complainant has filed this complaint.  

3.       In spite of service of notice, the OP appeared through their counsel and filed the version wherein the OP has admitted regarding reservation of stores for the schedule tribes and EMD was Rs.2,00,000/- and denied that the complainant was successful bidder.  The OP denied the averment that the OP has not conducted re-auction.   It is further contended by the OP that the Elected Body of the OP on 25.08.2020 decided to auction the vacant shops in the bus stand and the same has been done in accordance with law and the complainant has not participated in the said bid which was conducted on 10.02.201, 09.08.2021, 08.10.2021 and 01.12.2021 though the complainant is having knowledge of the public auctions as they have published regarding public auction widely in the news paper.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service.

The OP further contended that the complainant himself moved the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.32096/2013 and got an order for re- auction and there is no any directions given by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the bidder who has deposited the money has nor participated in the auction or he is unsuccessful bidder, then within time, the complainant has to make a requisition for repayment of EMD amount with necessary documents, but the complainant without doing so, approached this Authority only on 17.08.2022 and the OP has replied him to produce the documents as to enable the Authority to repay the EMD amount, as such the claim of the complainant is beyond the period of limitation.  The OP further contended that it is false to say that the complainant has sustained mental torture by approaching the Courts and it would have been sustained if allotted the shop are all false and incorrect and the OP is not liable to pay Rs.10,34,436/- and Rs.5,50,000/- as compensation.  On these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. On behalf of OP one Mr.Yogannada .C, Commissioner has filed his affidavit evidence.  Both parties have not marked the documents though produced.

5.       On hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the documents produced by both parties, the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

6.        Our findings aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In the affirmative

Point No.2: As per the final order

:REASONS:

Point Nos.(1) & (2):

7.       It is an admitted fact by the OP that the OP has received EMD of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant for auction conducted by the OP as per Notification dated:15.09.2012.  The complainant proudced the receipt issued by the OP dated:28.09.2012 which established that the complainant has taken the Token No.158 for bid.  Further, the complainant argued that, store No.90, 60, 30 and 120 were reserved for schedule Tribes.  To prove the same, the complainant has produced the copy of the notification for public auction of commercial stores (ªÁtÂdå ªÀĽUÉUÀ¼À §»gÀAUÀ ºÀgÁdÄ ¥ÀæPÀluÉ) dated:15/09/2012, which reflecting that the store number No.60 reserved for Schedule Tribes.  Further, the complainant submitted that store No.60 was bided in the name of the complainant.  But the complainant has not produced/provided any documents to show that the store No.60 was bided in the name of the complainant.  The complainant has submitted that the complainant filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and got an order for re-auction, but the OP has not conducted the Re-auction and on 31.12.2020, the OP has conducted the re-auction and allotted Store No.60 for general category.  The complainant and OP have produced the copy of the writ petition No.32096/2013 dated:02.11.2018 in which the Hon’ble High Court has not mentioned to re-auction of Store No.60 for particularly to any category.  The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has directed “to conduct fresh auction for the Shops in question, in a manner known to law”.   The complainant himself admitted that he has not participated in the re-auction conducted by the OP. 

8.       The counsel for the OP has argued that the OP has conducted re-auction after the disposal of the W.P.No.32096/2013 and bid was conducted on 10.02.2021, 09.08.2021, 18.10.2021.   To prove the same, the OP has produced the following documents:   

1. Copy of the auction notice dated:31.12.2020
2. Copy of the e-auction notice
3. Copy of the E-Auction notice in Tumkur Vartha News Paper
4. Copy of the E-Auction notice in Vijayavani News Paper
5. Copy of the Auction notice dated:05.07.2021
6. Copy of the Auction notice in Tumkur Vartha news paper
7. Copy of the E-Auction notice in Praja Pragathi News Paper
8. Copy of the E-Auction notice in Vishwa Vani news paper
9. Copy of the 3^rd E-Auction notice dated:02.09.2021
10. Copy of the E-Auction notice in Praja Pragathi News paper
11. Copy of the 4^th E-Auction notice dated:29.10.2021
12. Copy of the E-Auction notice in Hosa Digantha News Paper
13. Copy of the E-Auction notice in Praja Pragathi News paper.

The above documents are establishes that the OP has re-conducted the auctions as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.32096/2013.

9.       The complainant has submitted that he had submitted a request letter on 17.08.2022 to the OP for refund of EMD of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 18% from 28.09.2012 and the OP has not complied the same.  The complainant has produced the copy of the request letter dated:17.08.2022.  In contrary, the OP has submitted that they have replied to the complainant to produce the documents in that regard and the OP has produced the copy of the reply letter dated:03.09.2022, in which the OP has asked the complainant to produce the receipt of EMD paid by the complainant and acknowledgment for participation in the public auction.  On perusal of the request letter dated:17.08.2022 given by the complainant, the complainant has mentioned the DD number 1243, dated:28.09.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Token number as 158 in the request letter.  These informations are sufficient to the OP to refund the EMD of the complainant.  After participating in the W.P.No.32096/2013 the OP has well aware about the EMD paid by the complainant and the details of the EMD of the complainant.  It is the duty of the OP to refund/return the EMD to the complainant after receiving the request letter from the complainant.  The complainant has filed copy of the acknowledgment issued by the OP with details of Token number, DD number.  The OP has failed to return the EMD though after filing the present complaint, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, the OP is liable to pay the EMD of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant with interest.

10.     The complainant has prayed for interest @ 18% on Rs.2,00,000/- from 28.09.2012 to till the date of filing the present case.  But the complainant submitted that he has given the request letter for refund of EMD on 17.08.2022.  The complainant has not made any efforts to take the EMD before 17.08.2022.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim the interest from 28.09.2012.  Further, the complainant has prayed interest @ 18%, but it is on the higher side.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. for Rs.2,00,000/- from 17/08/2022 to till the date of realization. 

11.     Further, the complainant has prayed Rs.5,50,000/- towards compensation.  But the complainant has not produced any documents to show that he was entitled for compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-.  But, the OP compelled the complainant to approach this Commission.  Hence, the OP is liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  Accordingly, we pass the following:-    

:ORDER:

The complaint is allowed in part with costs.

The OP is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% PA from 17.08.2022 to till realization.

Further, it is directed that the OP shall liable to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

The OP is further directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties.