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 /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 410/09 DATED 04.01.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant S.J. Narayana Swamy S/o Bharanaiah, R/at Door No.1669, 9th cross, Ashokapuram, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. B.N.S, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Commissioner, MUDA, J.L.B. Road, Mysore City. <br /> ( By Sri. M.R.S.K., Advocate,)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 04.11.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 20.11.2009<br /> Date of order : 04.01.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 15 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party, seeking a direction to allot site No: 6199 measuring 40 X 60 feet situated at Vijayanagara 2nd phase, 4th stage by receiving the amount from the complainant and grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, on 28.08.1998, the opposite party allotted a site No: 6199 measuring 60 X 40 feet situated at Vijayanagara 2nd phase, 4th Stage, Mysore for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/. Towards the said allotment, the complainant had paid only Rs.1,350/-. On 19.11.2002, the opposite party had issued an endorsement to the complainant intimating to pay the balance amount of Rs.98,650/- with interest within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the said letter and to obtain the sale deed, failing which the amount initial amount would be forfeited by canceling the allotment of the site. On 18.01.2005, again opposite party issued a similar letter to the complainant calling upon to paying the balance amount. The complainant was not in a position to pay the said amount. On 30.03.2005, the opposite party ordered for the forfeiture of the initial deposit and cancelled the allotment of the site. After the complainant recovered financially, approached the Government to consider his request for the allotment. On 20.01.2006, the Government wrote a letter to the opposite party to receive the balance amount with interest and to allot the site, if it is not allotted to someone else. On 24.03.2006, the complainant wrote to the opposite party seeking the permission to deposit the balance amount. On 21.04.2006, the opposite party ordered for the re-allotment of the said site to the complainant. In spite of the repeated requests, the opposite party did not oblige to give effect to his own order passed on 21.04.2006. The opposite party started dodging and hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party which is highly illegal and totally uncalled for. On 27.07.2009, the complainant issued notice to the opposite party, appraising the facts requesting to receive the amount and to comply the demand has made. The opposite party has not complied the demand. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party, in the version admitted certain facts alleged in the complaint. However, it is contended that, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the complainant did not pay the balance amount. Since the complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions, is not entitle to the reliefs sought. It is stated that, as per the directions issued by the Government, the opposite party cannot receive the balance amount. The complaint is not in time. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In support of the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, the opposite party has filed his affidavit and produced certain proceedings of the Government. We have heard the arguments of learned advocates for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The opposite party amongst other contentions has contended that, because of the fault committed by the complainant, he is not entitled to the relief sought. In this regard, in the complaint, the complainant has alleged that in the year 1998, opposite party has allotted the site for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Even though the site was allotted in the year 1998, the complainant paid only Rs.1,350/- in the year 2002 after lapse of four years. At that time, the opposite party had directed the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.98,650/- with interest within 30 days and to obtained the Sale Deed. In spite of it, the complainant did not pay the balance amount. In the year 2005, again the opposite party issued similar letter to the complainant calling upon to pay the balance amount. In the said letter opposite party had informed the complainant that, in case balance is not paid, the advance will be forfeited and allotment will be cancelled. Then the complainant has alleged that, only in the year 2006, he recovered financially and he approached the Government to consider his request. Even otherwise, it is relevant to note that, the document at serial No.16 on page 23 produced by the complainant himself that, in the year 2006, the opposite party called upon the complainant to pay the balance amount within 15 days, but the complainant failed to pay the said amount. Hence, under the circumstances, rightly the opposite party has cancelled the allotment of the site. It was only on account of fault of the complainant. Absolutely, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is established.<br /> <br /> 8. The opposite party further contended that, the complaint is time barred. As could be seen from the letter at serial No.16, on page 23 of the document produced by the complainant, which is dated 25.01.2006, the opposite party had called upon the complainant to pay the balance amount within 15 days. The present complaint is filed on 04.11.2009, nearly after about two years ten months. Hence, we are of the opinion that, the complaint is time barred.<br /> <br /> 9. We feel it not necessary to refer to the documents and other contentions of the complainant that, he has approached the Government or the Governor etc.,.<br /> 10. For the reasons noted above, our finding on the point is in negative.<br /> <br /> 11. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed. <br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 4th January 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />