BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.259-2015

DATED ON THIS THE 12^th February 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant sought a direction against the opposite party, to allot a site measuring 40’ x 60’ by withdrawing the site allotted and to refund the amount collected in excess with 18% interest p.a. and other reliefs.
2.     A site has been allotted and registered sale deed executed by the opposite party.  An additional sum of `20,000/- has been collected, as the site was measuring more.  On receipt of the UPOR from city survey officer, the complainant found that the site allotted was measuring less than what has been allotted.  As such demanded for withdrawal of the site and pray for allotment of site measuring 60’ x 40’ only.  On refusal to comply, the complainant alleging the deficiency in service filed this complaint.
3.     The opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and barred by limitation.  The opposite party submits, it has already executed a registered sale deed in favour of complainant and the possession was handed over.  Hence, the complainant being absolute owner of the property has to protect the property and it has got registered the site based on the C.D. list released by the authority, accordingly, the tax has been collected.  As such, it is not responsible for any of the variation in the site measurements after a lapse of 10 years.  Hence, no deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     To prove the facts, both parties filed their affidavit and placed several documents.  Both filed written arguments.  On perusal of the records, matter posted for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service by opposite party in allotting a site measuring lesser dimension and thereby entitled for the reliefs sought?
3.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- Does not call for discussion.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant had paid the entire sale consideration towards the allotment of site and thereby the opposite party allotted a site and executed the registered sale deed. 
8.    Subsequently, the complainant having absolute right over the property got transferred the khata in her name and was in possession of the property.  The complainant had paid the additional amount of `20,000/- towards the allotment of excess land and the same reflects in all the documents, placed before this Forum.  As such, the complainant was very well aware of the dimension of the site allotted to her.  Accordingly, she was paying the tax to the authority.  The complainant obtained the UPOR documents recently and realised that there is variation in the dimension of the site allotted in her favour.  The matter requires an elaborate evidence to decide the issues raised.  Hence, we are of the opinion that, the complaint filed by the complainant cannot be decided in summary proceedings.  As such, the complainant is at liberty to seek the remedy before the civil court.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
9.    Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions, point No.2 does not call for discussion.
10. Point No.3:- From the above observations, we proceed to pass the following order.

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 12^th February 2016)