BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 3702/2011
Mysore Urban Development Authority,
JLB Road, Mysore,
Represented by its Commissioner.
(By Shri. T.P.Vivekananda, Adv.,)
……….Appellants.
-Versus-
H.B. Krishna Nayak, Medical Officer,
2222, SQS, Air Force,
C/o 56, APO.
(By Sri. M.M. Swamy, Adv.,)
……….Respondents
: O R D E R :
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated:11.08.2011 passed by Mysore District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.3702/2011, which allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and submits that complainant has filed an application dated:07/04/1994 seeking allotment of site measuring 50’ X 80’ under Ex-servicemen category and considering his application site bearing No.29 measuring 50X 80’ at Hanchya and Sathagalli Layout came to be allotted on 06.10.2001 for a total consideration of Rs.3,03,000. The letter of allotment was forwarded to the address given by the respondent/complainant in the application form, but there was no reply from the complainant and therefore an endorsement has been issued to the complainant on 13.11.2002 to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,99,976/- , but the complainant neither paid the sital value nor replied to the endorsement and hence they have cancelled the allotment made in favour of complainant and then the said site was allotted in favour of one Manu Bheemaiah on 14.07.2003 and the said allottee also not paid the sital value and hence the allotment was cancelled by an order dated:20.07.2005. Thereafter after lapse of nearly 8 years from the date of allotment, the complainant submitted a representation dated:26.12.2009 stating that he has been allotted with the site bearing No.29 measuring 50’ X 80’ at Hanchya Satagalli Layout, therefore, the letter of allotment may be issued. Thereafter the complainant without ascertaining any facts, filed a complaint before the District Commission and the District Commission in turn dismissed the complaint as because the complainant has not produced any documents regarding deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Then the complainant obtained copies with the Opposite Parties under RTI and filed fresh complaint with a prayer to issue letter of allotment and title deed in respect of site in question and also sought for damages and compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs for mental agony. Thereafter the Opposite Party filed version contending that the site has been allotted in the year 2001 and the letter of allotment was forwarded to the address given in the application form and as the complainant has not paid the sital value, the Authority having no other alternate but to cancel the allotment for non-payment of the sital value has passed in order canceling the allotment and prays to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency of service.
2. After trial, the District Commission, Mysore allowed the complaint by directing to issue allotment letter in favour of complainant in respect of same site bearing No.29 measuring 50’X80’ situated in Hanchya Sathagalli, ‘B’ Zone Layout, Mysore on the same value as allotted earlier after deducting the initial payment of Rs.3,024/- already paid by him from the site value by receiving balance amount with cost.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party preferred this appeal on various grounds.
4. We have heard the arguments from both sides.
5. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission, Mysore, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the Respondent is a Doctor served in Indian Air force and he had applied for site measuring 50’ X 80’with the appellant under application No.44973 on 07/04/1994 for the allotment of site and same was registered as 165243. He has paid a sum of Rs.3,024/- as initial payment for the allotment of site.
6. The grievance of the respondent is that in spite of several attempts, the appellant has not issued allotment letter of site and also not gave anything in writing about the allotment of site. The Respondent approached the District Commission in 2010 for a direction to allot the said site in his favour, but due to not submitting the documents regarding allotment of site, the District Commission dismissed the earlier complaint on 26.03.2010. After that the respondent has applied for allotment letter under RTI and the appellant furnished the certified copy of the office note and cancellation letter of allotment on 18/06/2010 and failed to furnish the allotment letter along with other documents. Hence, the respondent has filed the complaint before the District Commission, Mysore.
7. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, Mysore, wherein the appellant in his objection has contended that immediately after the allotment of site, the allotment letter was discharged to the Respondent on 17/11/2001 to the address furnished by him in the application and in spite of receiving the same, the complainant has failed to pay the balance amount of site value within the stipulated period. Hence, allotment order was cancelled as per the Rules and Regulations. The appellant also contended that the complainant has slept over the matter for a period of about 8 years and then filed the complaint which is barred by limitation.
8. Per-contra, he respondent denied that the letter of allotment which was sent by the appellant was served on him. Hence, he was unable to pay the balance amount of site value. The respondent has paid the initial payment of Rs.3,024/- for allotment of site. Even though the allotment of letter was not received by the Respondent, it does not give right for the renewal of allotment. It was the duty of Respondents to furnish the permanent address to communicate and to find-out easily and it was also his duty to approach the appellant with personally or through letters. The respondent has paid initial amount in the year 1999 and kept quite up to 2010. In the year 2010 he has come forward and asked for site. The appellant has cancelled the allotment letter when the respondent failed to pay the balance site amount. The appellant furnished the original allotment letter and also filed before the District Commission, but failed to furnish the receipt and acknowledgment regarding allotment letter. Moreover, the complainant also not produced any documents to show that he has communicated with the appellant between 1999 to 2010 and not disproved that the allotment letter was not served on him.
9. Anyhow there is a letter of allotment which was not denied by the appellant. But there is no any clarification by both the parties when the allotment letter was dispatched by the appellant and same was received or not by the respondent. Moreover, the appellant has cancelled the allotment of site in the year 2002 itself and the complainant filed the complaint in the year 2010 i.e. after lapse of 8 years before the District Commission, which is clearly beyond the period of limitation as per the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, it is difficult to the appellant to keep the site for more than 8 years with them and the respondent has also not produced any evidence to show that the same site is still available. Anyhow the respondent invested the amount of Rs.3,024/- in the year 1999 with the appellant which was his hard earned money. Hence, the respondent is entitled to receive the said amount along with interest only and not for allotment of site as ordered by the District Commission. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the District Commission requires modification.
10. Further, during the proceedings, the appellant was directed to deposit cost of Rs.3,000/- in the Legal Aid Account of this Commission for non appearance of the appellant. But it seems that the appellant has not deposited the cost of Rs.3,000/- till now. Hence, it is just and proper to direct the appellant to deposit the said amount in the Legal Aid Account of this Commission. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:11/08/2011 passed by Mysore District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.1018/2010 is hereby set-aside. But, directed the appellant only to return the amount of Rs.3,024/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 1999 to till realization.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
The appellant is directed to deposit cost of Rs.3,000/- in the legal aid account of this Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which Registry is directed to take proper steps to recovery the amount from the appellant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
