<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 19th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1189/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.K.Bore Gowda,<br /> S/o Late Kyathe Gowda,<br /> Aged about 54 years,<br /> No.33, “Byraveshwara Nilaya”<br /> 10th Main, Kalappa Block,<br /> Srinagara,<br /> Bangalore – 560 050.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.M.J.Alva<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Commissioner,<br /> Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,<br /> Bangalore – 560 002.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Administrator,<br /> Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,<br /> Bangalore – 560 002.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.S.H.Amaresh<br /> <br /> 3. The Deputy Commissioner,<br /> Bangalore Rural District,<br /> Bangalore – 560 009.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to allot a site measuring 30’ x 40’ at Kengeri Satellite Town and pay a compensation and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant on reading notification issued by the Kengeri CMC with regard to allotment of a site to the general public at Kengeri Satellite Town dated 20.02.1985 submitted his application on 19.03.1985 expressing his willingness to purchase a site 30’ x 40’. CMC Kengeri admitted his application and allotted him a site No.110 at Voddarapalya for a total cost of Rs.15,000/-. Complainant did make payment of the said amount in time and he was ready to make the balance amount as and when called upon by the CMC Kengeri. But thereafter some how the said CMC failed to register a site in his favour and put him in possession. On the other hand came up with lame excuse that the allotment of the said site is under consideration by OP.3. He also came to know that as per the orders of the Civil Court the sites are to be the auctioned in public. Though complainant invested his hard earned money about two decades back he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the Kengeri CMC then by the OP’s who took over the said CMC. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to allot the said site, register the site and put him possession went in futile. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant didn’t pay the required consideration of the said site in time, he became the defaulter. In addition to that the said CMC was required to pay Rs.40,000/- per acre to the land owner towards the acquisition of the land and to provide 4 sites of 30’ x 40’ dimension to her. Legal proceedings took place. As per the directions of the Hon’ble Court respondents were required to pay a sum of Rs.4,47,550/- to the owner along with 12 sites. In pursuance of the said orders CMC sought for the permission of the OP.3. Though Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the said layout vide order dated 12.11.1984 there is a legal hurdle. Then as per the decision of the General Body Meeting dated 29.06.1985 sites which were allotted to the applicants at the rate of Rs.15,000/- earlier were enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Some of the applications received back their deposits remaining other beneficiaries didn’t receive the said deposit. It was resolved by the CMC to allot the said sites by lottery and who ever succeeds is required to pay the present market value. With all that complainant didn’t comply the said demand of the OP. He was neither the highest bidder in the public auction held nor he was lucky to get the site in the lottery. Under the circumstances no fault lies with the OP. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Complaint is barred by time. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant applied for a site measuring 30’ x 40’ in Kengeri Satellite Town as per the notification issued by the CMC Kengeri dated 20.02.1985. Initially CMC Kengeri allotted him site No.110 on 19.01.1987 and that he paid Rs.15,000/-. Though he was ready and willing to pay the remaining sital value, CMC didn’t receive the same and failed to register a site in his favour. On repeated correspondence and insistence made by the complainant OP came up with a lame excuse that the matter is at the consideration of OP.3 the Deputy Commissioner.<br /> <br /> 7. On the perusal of the defence set out by the OP there appears to be some dispute with regard to said project floated by the Kengeri CMC pertaining to the residential sites. The owner of the land has raised the litigation and as per the orders of the Hon’ble Court CMC Kengeri was required to give her some sites and pay the land value of more than Rs.4,00,000/-. Under the circumstances the sital value was increased from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Complainant failed to make payment of the remaining amount in due thus become defaulter. Some of the applicants who were not happy with the escalation of the sital value with-drew their deposit and rest of them have not received the deposit. On insistence of the other interested applicants it was thought to fit to distribute the said sites by way of lottery and beneficiary was required to deposit not less than Rs.25,000/-. In that lottery system also it appears complainant has not participated.<br /> <br /> 8. It further appear that due to legal hurdles and Government notification the sites were put to public auction even in that also it appears complainant has not participated. So all these acts and deeds of the complainant goes to show that he is not diligent in asserting his rights. What made him keep mum for all these two decades without asserting his rights is not known. There is an inordinate delay in raising this ‘consumer’ dispute. In view of the good number of legal hurdles and cases being filed before the competent Civil Court, we are of the view that considering the complex question of law, it entitled it would require volume ness evidence for its disposal, which is not possible for this Forum to go into all these details in its summary jurisdiction if the complainant is so advised he can file a comprehensive civil suit to redress his grievance.<br /> <br /> 9. On going through the complaint as well as affidavit evidence of the complainant, he has not disputed or denied the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, civil court orders, orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Under such circumstances though complainant is aware of the said legal dispute has kept mum, now after long lapse of two decades he has come up with this complaint. Approach of the complainant rather doesn’t appear to be very much fair and honest. Under the circumstances we find because of the legal hurdles hands of the OP are tied in registering and allotting the said site. In addition to that complainant become the defaulter. Under such circumstances it can’t be held that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 10. As already observed by us if the complainant is so advised he can file a comprehensive civil suit and seek appropriate relief. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Complainant has not sought for the refund of the amount paid by him. Hence that relief is also not considered. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br />