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 64/10 DATED 19.05.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Secretary, <br /> Chikkamadaiah Charitble Trust (R),<br /> Left of Sri Yoganarasimhaswamy Temple, 1st Stage, Vijayanagara, Mysore-570017.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. K.T.Suresha, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Commissioner,<br /> Mysore Urban Development Authority, J.L.B.Road, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. M.R.S.K, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : .2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : .2009<br /> Date of order : 19.05.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTHS 8 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Amongst other facts, it is alleged by the complainant that, it paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,22,400/- to the opposite party on 08.02.2001 in respect of allotment of CA site No.02B measuring 40 x 40 mtrs, but later, in spite of furnishing required information and documents, illegally opposite party has cancelled the said allotment and in spite of repeated requests has not re-allotted the site. Hence, it is sought a direction to the opposite party to issue allotment letter in respect of the said site.<br /> <br /> 2. In the version, opposite party has contended that, the complaint is not maintainable and it is not in time. Further, it is contented that, the complainant is a family Trust and as per the direction, the complainant did not produce necessary documents and hence, as per the Rules, the allotment has been cancelled. The opposite party has given endorsements in respect of the petitions, which were submitted by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 3. For the complainant, an application to condone the delay is filed and in the accompanying affidavit, most of the facts alleged in the complaint, are stated. Also, it is stated that, father of the Secretary of the Trust died and the Secretary was suffering from mental agony and further, it is stated that, in spite of submissions of the documents, opposite party has stated that, the same were not furnished. Hence, it is prayed to condone the delay. For the opposite party, objections are field, stating that, there are no grounds to condone the delay and the facts stated in the affidavit are false.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the respective contentions, both parties have filed their affidavit and certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocate for the complainant. When the matter was posted for arguments, the opposite party and the advocate remained absent. We have perused the records.<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 it is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Before entering into the merits, the interim application of the complainant for condonation of the delay, shall have to be decided, since even according to the complainant, the complaint is not in time. Certain facts could be considered later on. But, in substance, at the outset, the complainant claims that, though the documents called for by the opposite party were furnished, the opposite party has cancelled the allotment of the site stating that the documents were not produced. Scrutinizing the entire material on record, it has been proved by the complainant that, in fact before the stipulated time given by the opposite party through the final notice, the complainant had produced necessary documents. Hence, in the contention of the opposite party that, complainant did not furnish the documents within the time, is without substance. Considering this, amongst other facts stated in the affidavit accompanying the interim application and so also, taking into consideration that, the complainant is a Trust and that in the year 2001 itself it has paid huge amount more than Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party, in the interest of justice, it is just and necessary to condone the delay and accordingly, it is condoned and interim application is allowed.<br /> <br /> 8. From the document dated 23.09.2004 issued by the opposite party to the complainant, it is fact that, CA site No.02B situated at Vijayanagar 4th stage, 2nd Phase, Mysore measuring 40 x 40 mtrs was allotted to the complainant on certain terms and conditions, on lease for a period of 30 years. By the said letter, the opposite party directed the complainant to deposit the lease amount as stated therein, which includes, during the lease period of 30 years, with 18% interest. Thus, though the complainant could have paid the lease amount with interest during the entire lease period of 30 years. The amount has paid is one lumpsum on 08.02.2010 itself amounting to Rs.1,22,400/- in addition to payment of Rs.2,000/-. By the said letter, the opposite party informed the complainant to approach the opposite party in person along with lease amount and other information. As noted above, this letter is dated 23.09.2004, but admittedly, prior to the said date, in the year 2001 itself, the complainant had deposited the entire amount. Hence, so far concerned to lease amount, much prior to the date mentioned in the said letter, the complainant had paid it.<br /> <br /> 9. Xerox copy of undated letter of the opposite party to the complainant is produced, wherein it is mentioned, to get allotment letter, the complainant was directed to contact the opposite party personally. What for the complainant had to meet the opposite party personally is not stated in the said letter. However, according to the complainant repeatedly he approached the opposite party. Apart from the said letter, opposite party has written letter to the complainant dated 10.07.2006. By the letter, it is informed that by the letter dated 02.02.2005 complainant was asked to furnish certain documents, but by the letter dated 26.02.2005 complainant had sought time and accordingly, by the present letter, the complainant was called upon to produce the documents on or before 17.03.2005. Further, by the said letter it is stated that, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this letter, the complainant was called upon to produce necessary documents, failing which allotment will be cancelled and it is the final notice. We would like to repeat the date of the said letter, which is 10.07.2006. Much prior to 10.07.2006, the complainant furnished documents and other information to the opposite party on 28.06.2005 itself, for which the complainant has produced endorsement issued by the office of the opposite party, which is at page 36 of the file. When on 28.06.2005 itself the complainant had furnished necessary documents as well as information, the fact mentioned in the letter dated 10.07.2006 that the complainant did not furnish any documents in spite of earlier letters, cannot be believed and accepted. Thereeafter, on 16.01.2007 second time, the complainant has furnished the necessary documents to the opposite party, for which also there is acknowledgement at page 37 of the file. It is stated in the version that, on 18.11.2006 allotment of the site to the complainant has been cancelled. At the cost of repetition, as noted above, there are endorsements noted above that on 28.06.2005 itself the complainant furnished documents to the opposite party. Hence, the contention of the opposite party that because the complainant did not furnish necessary documents or information the allotment made came to be cancelled, cannot be believed and accepted. The said contention of the opposite party is contrary to the documents and the material on record. Consequently, said cancellation of allotment as claimed by the complainant, is not in accordance with law.<br /> <br /> 10. Since, the cancellation of the allotment is not in conformity with the law the opposite party is bound to re-allot the said site to the complainant on the same terms and conditions and execute necessary registered lease deed. Also, we would like to make it clear that, opposite party has not all stated that the said site has been allotted to some other person. However, further an observation is made that, if already said site has been allotted to any other person, then the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Accordingly, our finding on the above is partly in affirmative.<br /> 11. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to allot/re-allot CA site No.02B measuring 40 x 40 mtr situated at 4th Stage, 2nd Phase, Vijayanagar, Mysore and execute necessary registered lease deed in favour of the complainant, within a month from the date of the order at the cost of the complainant on the same terms and conditions shown in the earlier allotment letter.<br /> 3. If the said site has been allotted to some other person or for any reason, if it becomes impossible to re-allot and execute registered lease deed, then the opposite party shall refund the entire amount of Rs.1,22,000/- + Rs.2,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 08.02.2001 till realization. This amount shall be paid within two months from the date of this order.<br /> 4. Further, opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. 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 19th May 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />