IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <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 334/08 DATED 16.01.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt. Mahadevamma, D.No.596, F, 2nd Stage, Siddarthanagara, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.B.P.Rajesh, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.M.R.S.K, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03.11.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 27.11.2008<br /> Date of order : 16.01.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 ½ MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant who has filed this complaint against the opposite party is, that she had applied for allotment of a site measuring 40’ x 60’ on 31.01.1992. Thereafter she changed her residential address to the address given in the cause title and the same was intimated to the opposite party on 16.07.1998. But, the opposite party has not given any intimation of allotment of site despite her visit to opposite party’s office several times. That she made a representation to the opposite party as per resolution dated 21.04.2005, but even then opposite party did not inform her regarding allotment of site no.1718 of Hanchasathagally ‘B’ Zone, Mysore and the opposite party has also not taken any action as per the resolution. She again approached the opposite party on 22.07.2008 and gave her representation, but is of no use and thereby has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to furnish her allotment letter, deliver possession and execute a title deed with damages of Rs.25,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party who is a Commissioner of Mysore Urband Development Authority (MUDA) though is duly served has not appeared, but the Secretary of the MUDA as appeared through than advocate though he is not a party. Therefore, form all purpose, the opposite party can be taken has absent despite service. The Secretary of the MUDA has filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable and called upon the complainant to prove the allegations made in para 1 to 3 of the complaint. But, admitted that the complainant was allotted a site bearing no.1718 measuring 40’ x 60’ of Hanchasathagally ‘B’ Zone, Mysore and an allotment was sent to her to the address given by her in the application, but she has not fulfilled the terms of the allotment. Therefore, the allotment came to be cancelled on 01.01.2003 and re-allotted the same to one H.S.Usha on 14.07.2003, therefore they have not caused any deficiency in their service and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and a Second Division Assistant of the opposite party office filed affidavit evidence on the authority given to him by the opposite party. The complainant and the witness for the opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced a representation given by her to the opposite party on 16.07.1998 giving her change of address to be noted down in the office of the opposite party and a copy of another representation given by her to the opposite party on 22.07.2008 with Xerox copies of note sheet of the file of the opposite party and a copy of prescribed form in which certain particulars were furnished by her as called for by the opposite party and copies of allotment letters and two other letters said to had been sent by the opposite party to the complainant to her old address. The complainant has subjected the witness of the opposite party for cross-examination. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite party has caused deficiency in their service in not sending her, the letter of allotment to her correct address and canceling allotment without issue notice to her?<br /> 2. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The Secretary of the opposite party in the version and also in the affidavit evidence filed through his official has admitted to had allotted a site bearing no.1718 measuring 40’ x 60’ of Hanchasathagally ‘B’ zone, Mysore. But, further stated that the allotment letter was sent to the complainant to the address given in her application, but the complainant has failed to fulfill the terms of the allotment, therefore the same came to be cancelled on 01.01.2003. The complainant has denied receipt of the allotment letter or any other communication of the opposite party and relied upon her letter dated 16.07.1998 addressed to the opposite party giving her change of address requesting the opposite party to send further communications to her new address. The opposite party’s office has received this representation on the same day, as could be seen from the signature and seal of the opposite party. The witness of the opposite party in the cross-examination has admitted this complainant having had given a representation on 16.07.1998 for recording her change of address, therefore, there is no dispute that the complainant had given her changed address to the opposite party to send further communications to that address. Therefore, all the communications should have been sent to that address by the opposite party from that date onwards. But, the opposite party who allotted the site in favour of the complainant on 06.10.2001 sent that allotment letter to the complainant to her old address and not to the new address. Even, thereafter, the opposite party found to had sent another communication to the complainant on 01.01.2002 calling upon her to pay the balance sital value, again to the same old address. Then, the next communication dated 02.09.2002 has also been sent to the complainant to the old address. Therefore, the opposite party absolutely has not sent or delivered the allotment letter to the complainant nor has sent any communication calling upon her to pay the balance amount or regarding cancellation of allotment made. The witness for the opposite party in the cross-examination admitted that they will make an entry of an application given for change of address in their inward register and further stated there is no impediment for him to produce such register before this Forum. The witness though stated that allotment letter to the complainant was sent through registered post acknowledgement due, but, stated that he do not have any documents to prove the services of that register post. Though stated that he can produce it on the next date, but ahs not produced. The witness further stated that in addition to sending allotment letter through RPAD, they also send one letter through muddam, but again admitted in this case, they have not sent allotment letter through muddam. With this admission, and the fact that the opposite party has not produced any proof to prove the service of allotment letter to the complainant or any other communication to the complainant speak in volumes about callousness of the opposite party in dealing in its day to day matters. With this, we hold that the opposite party has not proved the service of allotment letter or any other communication on the complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. The opposite party as could be seen from the paper publication issued on 06.05.2005 have stated that in accordance with the decision taken by them on 21.04.2005 issued a public notification to the knowledge of some of the allottees to whom the allotment letters are not served on the ground they were not in the given address were given extended time from 10.05.2005 to 10.06.2005 to furnish particulars in a prescribed form with necessary documents to consider the case for furnishing them allotment letters. But, the opposite party as could be seen from the paper publication dated 06.05.2005 though had given a chance and time to the allottees who had not been served with the allotment letters till 10.06.2005, but even much earlier to that i.e on 01.01.2003 itself has cancelled the allotment made in favour of the complainant and alleged to had re-allotted to someone else. Here, we do not understand as to what was the hurry for the opposite party to cancel the allotment when they had taken a decision to give an opportunity to the allottees who had not received allotment letter to approach them for collecting the allotment letter. As found from the copies of the note sheet of the file of the opposite party furnished before us by the complainant, the opposite party without application of mind whether the allottee, the complainant was served with the allotment letter and the further communications sent to her giving her some time to pay the balance amount and without even serving notice of his intention to cancel the allotment, arbitrarily cancelled the allotment even against the established rules and exhibit an urgency in re-allotting that site in favour of one H.S.Usha. It is further seen that the complainant in pursuance of the paper publication issued by the opposite party furnished the particulars in the prescribed proforma and even given a representation on 22.07.2008 narrating about a representation given by her for change of address and non-receipt of allotment letter and other communications, the opposite party has not bothered to reply to those letters and to take further decision in the matter. The witness for the opposite party in the cross-examination has admitted that no action has been taken by them on the representation of the complainant. It is on going through these developments and material facts before us, we are constrained to say that all is not well in the establishment of opposite party and mischiefs are the main factor prevalent in the allotment of sites. These observations and mall practices are brought to the notice of the opposite party in some of the orders passed by this Forum and also in some appeals by Hon’ble State Commission also. But, the opposite party without any regrets and efforts to change their attitude, continued the same approach, with all these, the opposite party has also continued the casual approach in placing facts before the Forum and in conducting defense. With this, we hold that the opposite party has caused grave deficiency in their service and the complainant is therefore entitled for the relief sought for. <br /> <br /> 8. The opposite party claimed to have re-allotted the site allotted to the complainant to someone else, but has not made clear whether they have executed title deed in respect of that site to the other allottee or not if as on this day the opposite party has not executed title deed in respect of the site in question he shall allot the same in favour of the complainant and shall execute the title deed. As observed above in this order inspite of observations made by this Forum and the Hon’ble State Commission regarding dubious acts of opposite party in their dealing with regard to allotment of sites, cancellation and re-allotment arbitrarily has not been taken serious note of to rectify themselves. Therefore, the situation necessitates to impose punitive damages against the opposite party and to direct the opposite party to enquire into the developments of this case and fix the responsibilities on the concerned officials and officers and recover the damages from those persons and remitted to the account of the opposite party. With this, we pass the following order :- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The complainant is directed to pay the balance sital value as it was originally fixed with interest at 9% p.a. within 30 days from the date of this order. On the complainant so depositing, the opposite party shall within 30 days thereafter if it has already has not executed sale deed in respect of site no.1718 of Hanchyasathagally ‘B’ Zone, Mysore in favour of the other allottee shall allot it in favour of the complainant and execute title deed at the cost of the complainant and deliver possession to her.<br /> 3. In case, if the title deed has already been executed prior to this date in favour of other allottee, the opposite party within 30 days as stated above shall allot a site measuring 40’ x 60’ in the same layout and if site is not available in that layout in any other old layout or layouts formed during the same year or immediate next year and execute title deed at the cost of the complainant.<br /> 4. The opposite party shall remit Rs.25,000/- to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum and shall recover it from the officials or officers responsible for not noting down the change of address, sending allotment letter and correspondences to the old address and then putting up proposal for cancellation of the allotment and canceling of the allotment with hurried act of re-allotment to another person and fix the liability on them and remitted amount to the institution account.<br /> 5. The opposite party shall pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 6. Send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Authority, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore.<br /> 7. 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 16th January 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />