::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.44/2015.
Date of filing: 06.06.2015.
Date of disposal: 16.04.2018.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Sri. Gurudatta S/o Siddayya Wadiyar,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Self Employment,
R/o Tope Galli, Humnabad, Dist: Bidar.
(By Sri. P.M.Deshpande, Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) The Manager, K.S.I.D.C.,
Gandhi Gunj, Bidar.
2) The Chairman and M.D., K.S.I.D.C.
Rajaji Nagar,
Bangalore.
3) The Asst.Executive Engineer,
K.S.I.D.C. MSK Mill Road,
Gulbarga.
(By.Smt. Padma.Maharaj, Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
This is the second successive complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the same person against the same O.P.s. His first case being C.C.No.50/2002 (date of disposal 19.01.2004).
2. The averments of the complaint disclose that, on application of the complainant to start a small industrial unit at Bidar under the name and style of “M/s Mega Masala Powder Unit” the opponents had allotted him industrial shed bearing No.C-2 at Naubad Industrial, Area, Bidar. He was given possession of the shed on 01.07.1999 under an agreement, in which the complainant had under taken to pay charges, fees and costs. The complainant later got insured the Industrial shed and unit with M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.. It is further in the averments of the complainant that, the allotted shed was found defective in many extents for which the industrial unit could not be run. The complainant has been painstakingly bringing the same to the notices of the opponents to no avail. In the mean while, the complainant had incurred expenditures to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs by purchasing machineries and accessories.
3. Exasperated, the complainant then filed C.C.No.50/2002 before this Forum, and a considerate order was passed on 19.01.2004, as extracted below:-
a. The complaint date: 31.10.2002 filed by complainant is
allowed partly as follows;
b. The complainant is awarded damages of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees fifteen thousand only) with interest @ 12% from
the date of petition, till date of the order.
c. The respondents-2 to 4 are directed to repair the
industrial shed to this specification and for running of industrial shed within period of 2 months.
d. Respondents are restrained from charging interest to the
loan amount from the date of petition, till the unit is repaired.
4. It appears that, the opponents had preferred an appeal vide No.343/2004 (as revealed from Annexure Z-2) before the Hon’ble State Commission and the same was disposed off against them. As a corollary, Misc. Petition No.204/2005 was then filed before the State Commission, and the same was dismissed on 06.04.2006. It ipso facto means, the order of this Forum in C.C.No.50/2002 holds the floor throughout.
5. E.A.No.51/2009, was filed by the complainant before this forum (Annexure-Z.3) for execution of the order in C.C.No.50/2002. From the certified copy of the order sheet of the case, it is revealed that, on 19.04.2010, one Sri. Chandrashekhar putting up appearance had submitted that, tender for the repair work was floated. On 10.05.2010, the same official had under taken that, the work will be commenced. On 19.05.2010, it was submitted that, the work was under progress. On 30.06.2010, same official had produced some letter of the complainant (D. Hr.) for which, the E.A. was closed recording full satisfaction.
6. The complainant is not very clear as to whether, apropos to the undertakings of the O.P.s in E.A.No.51/2009, the industrial shed bearing No.C-2 in Naubad Industrial Area was restored perfectly or not. However, we see from Annexure-V, a letter of the complainant to the O.P.s date: 31.10.2011, in which, the complainant had agreed to the cost of the shed at Rs.5,78,902/-, demanded subsidy being from S.C./S.T. Categories, and further demanding the open space adjacent to the Industrial shed. In Annexure-X, we observe the reiteration of the earlier demand. The same is repeated in another letter date: 22.05.2014.
7. It appears from Annexure-Y, a letter issued by the opponents on 18.07.2014, demanding a sum of Rs.26,13,035/- towards the cost of the shed, R.B.M. interest and penal interest, which was repeated vide demand notice date: 13.03.2015 (Annexure-Z) is the bone of contention here for which the complainant is once again before us.
8. Per contra, the opponents appearing through counsels had never bothered to file any versions or evidence affidavits justifying their demands. Submissions were made from both sides regarding amicable settlement which was never materialized. We had suggested the appearance of the officials of the opponents to clarify their stand points but after availing several adjournments, Advocate Smt. Padma Maharaj, appearing for opponents on 03.04.2018, filed a memo that, the officials of the O.P.s were not agreeable to appear and clarify their stands. This proves the opponents’ defiance to abide by a legal order. Only, a perfunctory written argument is filed by them, trying to justify their stands which are improper ipso facto.
9. Under the circumstances cited above, specifically in the face of deliberate defiance of the O.P.s and their non participation in the case, we fix the following point for consideration.
- Is whether or not the acts of the opponents amount to unfair trade practice?
- What orders?
10. Our answers to points are as following:-
- In the affirmative.
- As per the final orders for the following:-
:: REASONS ::
11. Point No(a): The earlier order of this Forum passed in C.C.No.50/2002 is extracted in this proceeding, where in, a cost was levied against the opponents and they were directed to put the shed bearing No.C-2 in perfect specified condition within a periord of two months. The opponents having failed to satisfy the Hon’ble State Commission for any interference, the order is now final. Albeit, the related E.P.No.51/2009 was put to an end, due to a letter of the complainant. It is the averment of the complainant that, on good faith, he issued such letter after the opponents commenced the restoration work and the shed was not restored to the specifications. However, we refuse to bite this bait of the complainant as he had directly or indirectly intimated his full satisfaction.
12. Now, coming to the next point, vide orders in C.C.No.50/2002 this forum had directed the opponents not to collect any interest on the loan amount till restoration of the shed. The opponents have never reported to this forum about completion of restoration work, but have abstained to appear, which speaks volumes of their mens-rea.
13. After the closure of the E.A.No.51/2009, the complainant out right from 31.10.2011 (annexure-V) has been in forming the opponents of his willingness to deposit the amount of Rs.5,78,902/- (followed by Annexure-X) and execution of sale deed vide letter dated: 22.05.2014, which was never acted upon by the opponents.
14. In violation of the final orders of this forum, the opponents vide Annexures-Y and Z are demanding R.B.M. interest to the tune of Rs.8,01,474/- and penal interest to the tune of Rs.12,57,659/- together with cost of the shed @ Rs.5,53,902/-.
15. We infer that, this is nothing but unfair trade practice of the opponents and answer point (a) in affirm alive and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
- The opponents are hereby restrained to collect any interest whether R.B.M. or penal from the complainant;
- The opponents are here by directed to receive a sum of Rs.5,53,902/- towards the cost of the shed and executed the Regd. Sale deed in his favour;
- Acting u/s 14 (1) (f) of the C.P. Act, 1986, we direct the opponents not to resort to any unfair trade practice in future;
- A sum of Rs.20,000/- would be payable by the opponents as compensation, which shall carry an interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till realisation, together with a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses;
- The opponents are hereby prohibited to take any coercive steps such as seizure of the industrial shed.
- Six weeks time is granted to comply this order, Except at Para(e).
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 16th day of April 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure. A- C.C. of Judgement in C.C.No.50/2002 date: 19.01.2004.
- Annexure. B– C.C. of the complaint of compliant No.50/2002.
- Annexure. C– Objection statement.
- Annexure. D to H—C.C. of affidavits of complainant in
C.C.No.50/2002. - Annexure. J– C.C. of allotment order of opponents.
- Annexure. K- C.C. of Money receipt.
- Annexure. L- C.C. of communication of opponents.
- Annexure. M- Insurance certificate (C.C.).
- Annexure. N- C.C. of Insurance certificate in favour of O.P.
- Annexure. P- C.C. of Report of O.P.s.
- Annexure. Q- C.C. of Intimation of O.P.s.
- Annexure. R- C.C. of Intra office correspondence of O.P.s.
- Annexure. S- C.C. of office copy of legal notice.
- Annexure. T- C.C. of petition of complainant.
- Annexure. U- C.C. of restoration report.
- Annexure. V- Acknowledged cop of complainants representation.
- Annexure. W- Acknowledged cop of complainants representation.
- Annexure. X- Acknowledge copy of complainants representation
date: 04.02.2012. - Annexure. Y- Originals of demand letters charging R.B.M. and
penal interest. - Annexure. Z- Notice of O.P.s date: 13.03.2015.
- Annexure.Z.1-Representation of complainant date:
06.08.2014. (copy). - Annexure. Z.2- C.C. of order sheet in Misc. Petition No.204/2005 of
Hon’ble State Commission. - Annexure.Z.3- C.C. of the order sheet in E.A.No.51/2009.
- Annexure.Z.4-C.C. of the complainants’ statement in
E.A.No.51/2009. - Annexure.Z.5- C.C. submissions of complainant in E.A.No.51/2009.
Document produced by the Opponents.
–Nil-
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Smt. Gurudatta (complainant)
Opponent No.1
–Nil-
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
