IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi,<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 352 & 353/09 DATED 17.11.2009<br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant in C.C.352/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant in C.C.353/2009 Sri. Eraiah, S/o Puttamadaiah, R/at Hanchaya Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore.<br /> <br /> M. Mahadevaiah S/o Maraiah, No.478, B Block, Jalapuri Police Station, Nazarbad, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri M.D. Chandrashekar Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party in both cases is same The Commissioner, MUDA, J.L.B. Road, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri M.R. Surya Kumar. Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaints : 16.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 08.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 17.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 9 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Though the complainants are different in both the cases, the opposite party is common and further, almost all the facts and the contentions of both the parties being similar, for convenience, by the common order, both the complaints are being disposed off.<br /> <br /> 2. The complainants have filed the complaints under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the opposite party to issue Title Deed, in respect of the sites allotted to them.<br /> <br /> 3. In the complaints amongst other facts, it is alleged that on the basis of the applications of the complainants opposite party had allotted the sites on 25.02.2001 and directed the complainants to pay a sum of Rs.3,300/- and the remaining amount was to be paid within 10 years by 30 installments. On 25.02.2001, the opposite party has directed the respective complainants to pay the amount. Thereafter, in the year 2003, balance amount was paid. On 24.01.2007, the opposite party collected amount towards change of Title Deed. The complainants approached the opposite party several times to issue Title Deed, but the opposite party has not complied with the request. Even legal notice was issued. There is no reply. The sites are situated at Hanchaya Sathagally layout, Mysore city. For the convenience, the site numbers, measurement, the price and the advance payment is shown below in the table.<br /> <br /> CC No. Site No. Measurement Price Advance Amount paid<br /> 352/09 2130 20’ X 30’ 22,000.00 3,300.00<br /> 353/09 1148 20’ X 30’ 22,000.00 3,480.00<br /> <br /> On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaints.<br /> <br /> 4. In both the cases, the opposite party in the version has contended that, as per the allotment letter within 90 days the respective complainants did not pay the balance amount and hence, the allotment was cancelled. Thereafter the opposite party has written to the government on 15.03.2007 seeking clarification and no government order has been received. It is stated since the complainants have committed breach of the terms and conditions of the allotment not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaints.<br /> <br /> 5. In support of the respective contentions, the respective complainants and the opposite party have filed their affidavits and certain documents are produced. We have heard the learned advocate for the complainants and opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 6. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> 1. Whether both or any one of the complainants have proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that they are entitled to any reliefs?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point no. 1:- The fact of allotment of the sites to the complainants is admitted. The opposite party has contended that, since the complainant did not pay the balance amount within stipulated period the allotment was cancelled. As could be seen from the record, for the said reason, allotments of the sites to the respective complainants has been cancelled by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 9. However, important point that could be seen from the records that even thereafter on the applications submitted by the complainants the opposite party has received the balance amount from the complainants in the year 2003 itself. The opposite party instead of receiving the balance amount more than 6 years back could have refused, on the ground that allotment has been cancelled. After cancellation of the allotment on the application of the complainants the opposite party has received the remaining balance. Now, opposite party is estopped to contend otherwise. However, the opposite party has submitted that in case of cancellation of allotment of the site, prior permission of the government is necessary and they have already moved the government but no order has been received. Under the circumstances, it is suffice to make an observation that the opposite party to pursue the matter with the government and re-allotted the respective plots to the complainants at the earliest. With this observation our finding is in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 10. Point No. 2:- From the discussions made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Both the complaints are allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pursue the matter with the government and re-allot the respective sites i.e., site No.2130 to the complainant in CC-352/09 and site No.1148 to the complainant in CC-353/09 at the earliest.<br /> 3. After re-allotment of the respective sites to the complainants, execute Registered Sale Deed, in respect of those sites in favour of the respective complainants at their cost.<br /> 4. If for any reason within reasonable time the opposite party is unable to execute the Sale Deed in favour of complainants, the opposite party shall refund the entire amount to the complainants with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the respective dates of payment of the amount by the complainants mentioned below, <br /> Case No. Date Receipt No. Amount<br /> CC 352-09 20.06.2001 08281 3,300/-<br /> 25.10.2002 61326 7,000/-<br /> 02.12.2002 64515 4,000/-<br /> 23.06.2003 1208 14,555/-<br /> 24.01.2007 24352 133/-<br /> TOTAL 28,988/-<br /> CC 353-09 17.08.2001 16456 3,300/-<br /> 12.05.2003 10350 24,517/-<br /> 24.01.2007 23632 130/-<br /> TOTAL 27,947/-<br /> <br /> 5. Further, in case the opposite party is unable to issue Registered Sale Deed in favour of the complainants, further pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each complainants.<br /> 6. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 7. The original order shall be kept in CC-352/2009 and the Xerox copy in CC-353/2009.<br /> 8. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 17th November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />