Complaints filed on: 21-07-2022
Disposed on: 30-11-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
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
CC.No.118/2022
Smt. T.N.Yashoda W/o Late S.Nagendra Prasad,
“Yashaprada”,1st Main Road,
Mallige Road, Gokula Extension,
Tumakuru-572104.
……….Complainant
(In person)
V/s
1. Deputy Secretary – 3
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Guttahalli,
Bangaluru-560 020.
2. The Law Officer,
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Guttahalli,
Bangaluru-560 020.
3. The Commissioner
Bangalore Development Authority,
Kumara Park West, Guttahalli,
Bangaluru-560 020.
……….Opposite Party
(By Sri. P.Ashok, Adv.,)
:ORDER:
BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed the complainant against the OPs U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- towards compensation for not getting the absolute sale deed registered in her favour for the site No.1281 measuring 108.00 Sq.Mtrs situated at Arkavathi Layout Block-7, (Sy.No.53, Jakkur Village, Bangalore.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The OPs have executed Lease deed on 18/04/2009 for 10 years with regard to site No.1281 in favour of the complainant situated at Arkavathi Layout, 7th Block, Jakkur Village and in that regard she has paid an amount of Rs.2,26,750/- to the OPs. It is further contended that after completion of the lease period, the complainant approached the OPs on 21.12.2020 and requested to execute absolute sale deed in her favour with regard to site No.1281. Subsequently, after several requests, the OPs have intimated that there is a civil case pending with regard to Survey No.53/2 and after disposal of the said case, absolute sale deed will be executed in favour of the complainant with respect to site NO.1281. It is further submitted that the complainant is a senior citizen and suffering from age old diseases and she fed up with the attitude of the OPs in not executing the absolute sale deed and thereby she suffered lot of mental agony and financial loss. Hence, without any alternative, the complainant filed this complaint.
3. After receipt of notice from this Commission, the OPs have appeared through their counsel and filed their version contending that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable on the ground of non-compliance of Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, which mandates that no case shall be filed against the Authority unless due notice is given to it in that regard. Hence, the pre-requisite of issuance of notice not being complied with and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts.
3(a). The OPs further contended that for a period of 10 years, a lease cum sale agreement dated:01.04.2009 was executed by BDA with regard to site No.1281 in favour of complainant and since then complainant is enjoying peaceful possession of the same without disturbance by any one and after completion of 10 years of lease cum sale, the complainant approached the OPs by filing an application on 21.12.2020 and requested to execute the sale deed in her favour. Thereafter the Ops clarified the complainant that there is a civil case i.e. O.S.No.5250/2014 pending with regard to site No.128 in Sy.No.53/2 at Jakkur Village and till the disposal of the above case, the sale deed cannot be executed in favour of complainant. Being not satisfied with the endorsement, the complainant again filed one more application on 12.01.2022 and sought some more clarification and doubts from the OPs. It is submitted that the OPs have clarified all the doubts of the complainant, even though the complainant filed this complaint to harass the OPs and compensation prayed by the OPs without any valid reasons. It is further submitted that the OPs have clearly informed the complainant that absolute sale deed will be executed in respect of her site after disposal of the civil case which is pending before the Bangalore City Civil Court at Bangalore. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant has failed to make out any case for grant of any relief in the above case and same is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P3. One Manjunatha H.T. F.D.A/Case worker in Deputy Secretary-III in BDA, Central Office, Bangalore has filed affidavit evidence on behalf of OPs and marked the documents as Ex.R1 & R2.
5. We have heard the arguments from complainant in person and counsel for OPs.
6. On perusal of pleadings and documents produced by both parties, the points that would arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
2) Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?
7. Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:REASONS:
8. It is seen from the pleadings, evidence and documents of the parties that after completion of the lease period, the complainant approached the OPs on 21.12.2020 and requested to execute absolute sale deed in her favour with regard to site No.1281 measuring 108.00 Sq.Mtrs situated at Arkavathi Layout, Block-7, survey No.53 Jakkur Village, Bangalore. After several requests, the OPs have intimated that there is a civil case pending with regard to survey No.53/2 and after disposal of the said case, absolute sale deed will be executed in favour of the complainant with respect to site No.1281.
The OPs contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable on the ground of non compliance of section 64 of the BDA Act i.e. the pre-requisite of issuance of notice not being complied.
9. The pre-requisite of issuance of notice is mandatory in case of suits filed by the parties under CPC provisions. But under Consumer Protection Act, the complaint is filed only in case of alleged deficiency of service against parties. Therefore, under Consumer Protection Act, for filing of complaint issuance of notice is not necessary. Hence, the present complaint is maintainable. Even though the complainant has not issued any notice U/s 64 of BDA Act, but before filing the complaint, she has approached the OPs several times by requesting the OPs for registration of sale deed.
In the course of arguments, the counsel for OPs submitted that the OPs are ready to take alternative site if complainant wishes to take alternative site. It is also pertinent to note that the Law Officer/OP No.2 on 21.10.2021 gave opinion that Absolute sale deed will be executed in respect of her site No.1281 after disposal of the O.S.No.5250/2014. Later, on 21.06.2022, the Law Officer/OP No.2 in Para 128 specifically gave opinion that, if there is no case/suit on particular site number, BDA is considered their request of the complainant as per allotment Rules. Therefore, the OPs are consider the complainant’s requests on priority basis if there is no case/suit pending on particular site No. 1281.
10. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- for non getting the sale deed registration in her favour for the site No.1281. But the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to show that, she incurred expenses in 1 & ½ year, for travelling from Tumkur to Bangalore and other expenses. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from OPs 1 to 3. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the OPs for alternative site if she wishes. Accordingly, we pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The complaint filed by complainant is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the complainant to approach the OPs for alternative site if she wishes.
No orders as to costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties
