Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/40/2017

S. Balaji. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KSSIDC - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.Syedswaleha

13 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:11/04/2017

DISPOSED      ON:13/04/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO: 40/2017

 

DATED: 13^th APRIL 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B., PGDCLP  

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	S. Balaji S/o Srinivasa Shetty, Nagalakshmi Hardware, Opp: Amogha Complex, Chitradurga, Represented by his Special Power of Attorney HolderN.B.T. Zameer, S/o Babu Sab, Aged about 66 Years, R/o Chitradurga.   (Reptd. By Sri. S.Syed Swaleha, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Managing Director, KSSIDC Limited, Industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.   2. The General Manager, KSSIDC Limited, Industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.   3. The Deputy General Manager, KSSIDC Limited, Industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.   4. The Assistant General Manager, KSSIDC Limited, Harihar.   5. Joint Director of Industries and Commerce and Member Secretary, Single Window Committee, Chitradurga.   6. The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-01.   (Reptd. By Sri. D.G. Gundegowda, Advocate for OP No.1 to 4 and Sri. C.M.Veeranna, District Government Pleader for OP No.5 & 6)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.8,97,400/- towards the cost of special Plot No.Q-2 and to deliver the possession and to execute the lease cum sale agreement of the same in favour of complainant with lease period of six years, to award interest at the rate of 18% p.a on the AMD amount of Rs.1,01,000/- from 31.12.2011, Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.20,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.  

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complaint is that, complainant by name Balaji has filed an application before OP No.1 for allotment f of special Plot No.Q-2 at M.K. Hatti, Chitradurga with an intention to start small scale industry for his self-employment to eke out his livelihood.  The Notification was made by the OPs by its Managing Director bearing No.DVG/Khalimalige/Niveshana/ Hanchike/Prakatane/2011.  As per the Notification, the complainant has send a DD bearing No.033515 dated 30.12.2011 to the OP No.1 for Rs.1,01,000/- and another DD bearing No.033518 dated 30.12.2011 for Rs.5,552/-.  The complainant approached OPs since from the date of application dated 31.12.2011 but, he did not get any response for a long time for allotment of special Plot No.Q-2 at Industrial Estate, M.K. Hatti.  After a lapse of two years, the OP No.3 informed that the Plot has been allotted in favour of complainant and intimated abnormal cost of Rs.13,96,500/- excluding Rs.1,01,000/- paid to KSSIDC at the time of filing the application and also intimated to pay Rs.18,600/- for BESCOM charges, Slum Clearance Board charge of Rs.2,000/- and stamp duty of Rs.2,300/- in all Rs.14,19,400/- which is against to the Notification and oral promise made by KSSIDC  that the plot at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per square.  The OPs have notified for allotment of Plots on 13.11.2011 and informed the abnormal rate of allotment of 21.01.2014 which has consumed more than two years.  After that, the complainant has submitted a letter dated 03.02.2014 stating that OPs have told orally at the time of collecting the application from him that, the Plot will be allotted at Rs.1,000/- per sq.meter.  After receiving the letter from the complainant, the OPs have kept silent for a long while for more than one year seven months informed that, the cost of the plot has been reduced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,000/- orally.  The OPs have informed after lapse of one year seven months which is also deficiency in service on the part of OPs and further the OP No.3 has send a letter to the complainant and asked for Rs.1,84,000/- towards delay paid interest towards nonpayment of cost of Plot No.Q-2 but, according to the complainant, there was no delay on his part, the OPs have caused delay and informing the allotment and cost since from 31.12.2011 to 14.09.2015 nearly for four years.  The complainant has perused the letter sent by the OP No.3 and sent DD bearing No.123732 dated 26.11.2015 for Rs.8,97,400/- towards cost of  Plot No.Q-2 drawn on Sri. Kannika Parameshwara Souhardha Sahakara Niyamita, Harihara.  The OPs after receipt of DD informed the complainant vide letter dated 01.12.2015 to pay delay period interest of Rs.1,84,705/-, otherwise they will take action in accordance with the corporation rules.  The complainant on receipt of the above said letter, replied vide his letter dated 18.12.2015, the entire delay is caused by the OPs and there is no delay on his part.  The OP No.1 to 4 have received the application on 31.12.2011 and informed the reduced cost of plot on 14.09.2015 and there is a delay for more than 4 years.  The OP No.4 has sent back the DD on 20.02.2016 stating that, for non-payment of delay period interest, the complainant is liable to pay, but there is no delay from him and the delay has been caused at the end of OPs which was consumed for more than five years.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has approached the OPs several times in person.  On all these occasions, the OPs have drag on the matter by one or the other reason.  Without considering the request of the complainant, the OPs have go away from the terms and conditions of the Notification for allotment of plots vide its Notification dated 30.11.2011.  The acts of the OPs clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has approached the OPs with an intention of self-employment and installing small scale industry, but due to the act of the OPs, the complainant has sustained heavy loss and suffered mental agony and pain.  The cause action for this complaint arose on the date of return of DD with a reason that, the complainant has to pay the delay period interest i.e., from 20.02.2016 and it is continue as the letter correspondence and personal approach is going on till this day which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      After service of notice to the OPs, one Sri. D.G. Gundegowda, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.1 to 4 and filed version.  Sri. C.M. Veeranna, District Government Pleader, appeared on behalf of OP No.5 and 6 and filed version. 

According to the version filed by OP No.1 to 4, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The allegations made in the complaint against the OPs are not specifically admitted and denied the as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The averments made in para 1 to 3 are true and correct.  The averments made in para 4 of the complaint are true and admitted by these OPs only with regard to some portion and the remaining allegations made in the same para are denied as false.  The OPs have not call for any notification and they never stated anywhere that, they are going to allot any plot to the complainant.  The allegations made in para 5 to 9 are denied as false, which are created by the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the OP No.1 to 4 notified the allotment of plots on 30.11.2011 for lease cum sale basis.  The cost is fixed by the decision of Board of Directors of KSSIDC wherein the Board in its 324^th meeting held on 16.11.2012 has fixed the land cost at Rs.3,000/- per sq.meter w.e.f., 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2014.  It is true that, this OP had indicated the land cost as Rs.2,000/- per sq.meter in the Notification.  Due to the reason beyond its control, the allotment could not be finalized in time as for various reasons such as transfer of officers/officials, model code of conduct due to general elections and official pre-occupation of general elections and official pre-occupation of the Deputy Commissioner who is the Chairman of the SWA and the Joint Director, DIC who is the Chairman of the sub-committee.  As such the reasons are bonafide and there is no deliberate delay in finalizing the allotments.  The allotments were finalized on 21.01.2014 and allotment letters were issued indicating the cost of Rs.3,000/- per sq.meters.  However, the 333^rd Board of meeting held on 25.04.2015 reduced the cost from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per sq.meter.  However, the allottees have to pay the interest for the delay period as the complainant has failed to make payment within the specified period as indicated in the allotment letter.  The complainant failed to make payment of the cost of the plot within 60 days from the date of allotment and as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the allotment stands automatically cancelled.  Therefore, the complainant has no locus-standee to question the action of the OPs.  The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the C.P Act, 1986 and therefore, the complaint is not a consumer dispute within the meaning of 2(e) of C.P. Act.  If any damaging the rights of the properties which will be decided by only on Civil Court as it is civil in nature.  What are the transactions stated in the complaint are all took place at Harihara Town, Davanagere District.  Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

According to the version filed by the OP No.5 and 6 that, the complainant has filed this complaint for the relief of compensation for deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 to 4 and direct the OPs to perform their part of contract against the complainant.  The complaint against OP No.5 and 6 are not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The allegations made against OP No.5 and 6 are not specifically admitted and are denied as false and created story by the complainant.  The averments made in para 1 to 3 are true and correct.  Some averments made in para 4 are admitted and the remaining lines in the same para are denied as false.  The allegations made in para 5 to 9 are all false and denied as false.  The OP No.1 to 4 notified the allotment of plots on 30.11.2011 for lease cum sale basis.  The cost is fixed by the decision of Board of Directors of KSSIDC wherein the Board in its 324^th meeting held on 16.11.2012 has fixed the land cost at Rs.3,000/- per sq.meter w.e.f., 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2014.  It is true that, this OP had indicated the land cost as Rs.2,000/- per sq.meter in the Notification.  However, due to the reasons beyond its control, the allotment could not be finalized in time as for various reasons, as such the reasons are bonafide and there is no deliberate delay in finalizing the allotments.  However, the allotments were finalized on 21.01.2014 and allotment letters were issued indicating the cost of Rs.3,000/- per sq.meter.  The Board of KSSIDC in its 333^rd meeting held on 25.04.2015 reduced the cost from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per sq.meter as a SSI friendly gesture.  However, the allottees have to pay the interest for the delay period as the complainant has failed to make payment within the specified period.  If the complainant not paid the amount within the period specified by the OPs, the allotment stands automatically cancelled.  Further the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the C.P Act, 1986 and therefore, the complaint is not a consumer under C.P. Act.  There is no cause of action for filing this and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.      The complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-14 were got marked and closed his side.  On behalf of OP No.5, one Sri. B. Anand, Joint Director of District Industries and Commerce has examined as DW-1 and Sri. T. Subramani, Assistant General Manager of KSSIDC, Tumkur has examined as DW-2 on behalf of other OPs by filing their respective affidavits and no documents have been got marked and closed their side.     

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, OPs have committed deficiency in service in not allotting the special Plot No.36 in his favour after collecting necessary amount and entitled for the relief as prayed for?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:-  It is not in dispute that, the complainant intended to purchase special at M.K. Hatti, Chitradurga Taluk.  OP No.1 has issued Notification bearing No.DVG/Khalimalige/ Niveshana/Hanchike/Prakatane/2011 dated 30.11.2011.  On the basis of the Notification announced by the OP No.1, the complainant intended to take plot No.Q-2 and ready to pay the amount as fixed by the OPs.  Accordingly, the complainant has sent a DD for Rs.1,01,000/- to the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 has sent a letter to the complainant stating that, the rate of plot is Rs.3,000/- per sq.meter is reduced to Rs.2,000/- per sq.meter.  As per the notification and letter issued by the OPs, the complainant has sent an amount of Rs.42,900/- to the OPs through DD.  But, the OPs have send the letter to the complainant asking to pay the amount of Rs.1,84,000/- for the delay period interest.  The complainant has filed an application before the OPs seeking for allotment of site.  The OPs have received the application from the complainant and neglected to allot the plots to the complainant nearly for four years.  The OPs have stated in their version that, the delay has been caused to the due to the transfer of officers/officials, model code of conduct due to general elections and official pre-occupation of general elections and official pre-occupation the allotments could not be finalized in time as for various reasons.  It clearly shows that, the delay is caused on the part of OPs and not on the part of complainant.  Now the complainant is ready to pay the amount and it is the main duty of the OPs to allot the site in favour of the complainant.  The complainant intended to run small scale industry for his livelihood.  The entire family is also depending on the earnings of the complainant.  Here the case on hand, the OPs have demanded the complainant to pay the delayed payment interest.  When there is a delay on the part of OPs in allotting the plots to the complainant, the question of asking the complainant to pay delayed payment interest does not arise because, the delay was caused only on the part of OPs and not on the part of complainant.  Therefore, the contention taken by the OPs cannot be accepted.

9.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant.   The exhibits marked before this Forum as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-14 clearly shows that, the OPs have made notification for allotment of plots to the public.  Here the complainant is also submitted an application seeking for allotment of plot.  The OPs have collected the application from the complainant and also collected DD for an amount of Rs.1,01,000/-.  Such being the case, the OPs have to intimate the complainant well in time as to whether they have cancelled the allotment or allot the site.  But the OPs have taken nearly 4 years time and they have simply stated that, due to transfer of officers/officials, model code of conduct due to general elections and official pre-occupation the allotments could not be finalized in time as for various reasons.  This is not the reason for delay in allotting the plots.  The delay was caused on the part of OPs only and the same is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  The documents produced by the complainant clearly goes to show that, the complainant is having good case and complainant has proved that, the OPs have committed deficiency in service.  The OPs never produced any documents to disprove the case of the complainant to show that, the delay was caused on the part of complainant.  Such being the case, the question of paying the interest for delayed payment does not arise and it is the duty of the OPs to allot Plot in favour of the complainant after collecting necessary amount.  Hence, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 to 4 and the complaint as against OP No.5 and 6 is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.    

  10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to collect a sum of Rs.9,20,300/- including BESCOM charges of Rs.18,600/-, Rs.2,000/- towards Slum Clearance Board charges and Rs.2,300/- towards stamp duty and to allot Plot No.Q-2 in favour of complainant for a lease period of 6 years within two months from the date of this order.  Failing which, the OPs No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OPs No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and  Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Complaint as against OP No.5 and 6 is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OPs No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 60 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 13/04/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:  SPA Holder of Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 

DW-1: Sri. B. Anand by way of affidavit evidence.

 

DW-2: Sri. T. Subramani by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Rules and Regulations
02	Ex-A-2:-	Letter dated 18.05.2011 by the KSSIDC
03	Ex-A-3:-	Letter dated 31.12.2011 from S. Balaji
04	Ex.A-4:	Acknowledgement
05	Ex.A-5:-	Letter dated 21.01.2014 by the KSSIDC
06	Ex.A-6:-	Letter dated 03.12.2014 by Balaji
07	Ex.A-7:-	Letter dated 14.09.2015 by the KSSIDC
08	Ex.A-8:-	Letter dated 26.11.2015 from S. Balaji
09	Ex.A-9:-	DD No.123732
10	Ex.A-10:-	DD No.123731
11	Ex.A-11:-	Letter dated 01.12.2015 from KSSIDC
12	Ex.A-12:-	Letter dated 18.12.2011 from Abdul Jeelani
13	Ex.A-13	Letter dated 20.02.2016 by the KSSIDC
14	Ex.A-14:-	Lease agreement dated 13.05.2014

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**