These are a set of 21 revision petitions filed by the Karnataka Housing Board (referred to as KHB in this order), arising from 21 complaints.  The matter in all these complaints related to a residential lay-out taken up by the petitioner/KHB in Shimoga District.  In response to a notification published in the local newspapers on 5.5.2004 and 5.6.2004, all Complainants had registered for allotment of house sites in the proposed lay out.  The KHB received not only the registration fee of Rs.1050/- but also initial deposit of Rs.15,000/- from every one of them in 2005.  Later, it wrote to them seeking their consent for acceptance of allotment price at Rs.290 per sq. ft. The Complainants represented for reduction, but later accepted the rate of Rs.290/- per sq. ft. on 15.11.2007.    No further communication was received by the Complainants from the KHB and therefore, they issued legal notice in January, 2011, which was not replied.  It was in this background that all the consumer complaints came to be filed in 2011.

2.      District Forum, Shimoga in a detailed order rejected the contention of the KHB that the complaints are barred by limitation. It also held that the KHB had no valid reason for not allotting the sites after having received not only the registration amount, but also initial deposits from the Complainants.  It therefore, allowed the complaints and directed the OP/KHB to allot sites in the lay out formed on the land in question by draw of lots if necessary and pay them Rs.2000/- each towards cost.  Significantly, the District Forum also permitted the KHB to re-fix the price of the house sites, holding that determination of price was the prerogative of KHB. 

3.      This order has been upheld by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Appeals filed by the KHB, against it, have been dismissed. The Karnataka Housing Board is thus, before this Commission in 21 revision petitions against concurrent orders of the fora below.   We have heard Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Matkala Advocate, for the revision petitioner and Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate on behalf of the respondents.  The records as submitted have been perused carefully by us.

4.      It needs to be observed at the outset that while staying the operation of the impugned order, this Commission had directed the petitioner/ KHB to pay a sum of Rs.8000/- to each of the respondents/Complainants towards litigation and other allied expenses.  This was de hors the final outcome in the revision petition.   On 26.7.2013 the Commission was informed that this cost had not been paid.  However, three weeks time was sought and permitted to the KHB for making these payments.  The order also made it clear that if the litigation expenses are not paid within three weeks from the order i.e. 26.7.2013, the stay of operation of the impugned order granted on 16.4.2013 would stand automatically vacated.  On 6.2.2014, noting that the amounts had still not been paid, the Commission enhanced the payable amount to individual respondents/Complainants from Rs.8000/- to Rs.10,000/- and allowed two weeks for the same.  We are dismayed to note that no proof of payment of these amounts by the revision petitioner/KHB to the respondents/Complainants has been filed so far, despite efflux of over seven months from the date of the order.

5.      As observed by fora below, facts and circumstances in all complaints were almost identical, arising out of the same proposed lay out.  We, therefore, refer to the facts as mentioned in the revision petition no.4833 of 2011 filed by KHB in the Complaint of Mr. D. Shantappa.  The requisite amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was paid by him, through two demand drafts of 5.2.2007 and 22.10.2008, towards registration amount and initial deposit.  The Complainant did not receive any direct communication from the KHB, either about allotment or even about refund, till filing of the complaint.

6.      Per contra, the written response of KHB before the State Commission refers to the proposal of one Mr. A.M. Parameshwarappa for a joint venture with KHB to develop a lay out on the land in question.  It was allegedly approved by the Government of Karnataka on 17.1.2003.  Simultaneously, the KHB went ahead with newspaper notifications of 2004 and 2005, inviting applications from the public for  allotment of sites. KHB claims to have fixed the sital value at Rs.290/- per sq. ft. on 25.6.2007.  OP/KHB has not denied that this sital value had also been accepted by the Complainants within November, 2007.

7.      The eventual stand of OP/KHB before the District Forum, Shimoga was that:-

“There are totally 90 applicants are similarly situated as that of the complainant and the sites remaining are 25 as such it is practically not possible to allot even they are ready at the present market value.”

8.      The revision petition filed before this Commission by KHB   starts with what it calls a ‘brief factual matrix’ of the case but seeks to narrate it over the next 12 pages.   However, the perusal of the grounds for challenge to the impugned order shows that the main ground is that the Complainants are not ‘consumer’ of the petitioner/KHB.  This plea was raised before the State Commission. It has very rightly observed that KHB has not only accepted the earnest money but thereafter, has gone ahead to accept further deposits from the Complainants. It had also obtained willingness of the Complainants for the sital price of Rs.290/- per sq. ft, fixed in 2007.   No sites were allotted. Yet, there was nothing to show that either the earnest money or the initial deposits had been refunded to the Complainants.  We find ourselves in full agreement with this observation of the State Commission.  Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued before us that the exercise undertaken by the Karnataka Housing Board, which resulted in the above situation, was only as a measure of demand survey and was not a commitment to allot the sites to the applicants. This argument is contrary to the evidence on record.  The KHB went beyond the process of demand survey.  It also received further deposits, determined the final allotment price and even obtained acceptance of Complainants to it.  We therefore, find no merit in this argument.

9.      The plea of non-joinder of the joint venture partner as a necessary party to the complaint, as an alleged ground of vitiation of the complaint proceeding, was also raised before the fora below.  It has been rejected by the District Forum on the ground that the joint venture partner had transferred his right, title and interest in the property in question to KHB by a formally executed conveyance deed.  The order of the District Forum has even noted the date and registration number of the conveyance deed. We find that the revision petition itself refers to it in para 2 K when it says:-

“It is pertinent to submit that in the meanwhile, vide a Conveyance Deed dated 25.06.2007, A.M. Parameshwarappa transferred the 3 Acres 28 Guntas of land to the Karnataka Housing Board.  The cost was entirely borne by A.M. Parameshwarappa.” 

In any case, it is not the case of KHB that its dealings with the complainants, starting with the advertisement of 2004, were at any stage, on behalf of or through the erstwhile land owner.  Therefore, the complaint filed before the District Forum in 2011 would have had no reason to implead him as a necessary party. The complainants had no privity of contract with him.

10.    The issue of limitation was also raised before the fora below.  It was alleged that the cause of action arose in 2004 -2005 when the application for allotment was invited and the complaint was filed six years later in 2011.  Not only the record before the fora below but also the narration in the revision petition as well confirms the developments which fell during this period. The KHB did not stop at demand survey, but simultaneously had obtained initial deposits as well from the applicants.  In 2007 through a duly registered conveyance deed it acquired title over the land in question.  Thereafter, it sought and obtained willingness of the Complainants to an allotment price of Rs.290/- per sq. ft.    As already noted, neither the sites were allotted nor the deposits for the same were refunded to the Complainants.  This situation continued till the consumer complaint was filed.  It has been therefore rightly held by the fora below to be a case of continuing cause of action.

11.    For the reasons detailed above, we find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which could justify intervention of this Commission in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Consequently, the revision petitions are dismissed for want of merit. It is also directed that Rs.10,000/- awarded towards litigation expenses to each respondent/complainant  by this Commission on 6^th February 2014, shall be paid by the revision petitioner/Karnataka Housing Board within two months from the date of this order, if not already paid.