Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievance that he had applied for allotment of a site measuring 40’ x 60’ and made initial deposit of Rs.5,625/- with registration fee of Rs.500/-, Thereafter, he did not receive any communication. Then on 01.01.2006, the Opposite party had published a news item in the News Paper stating that allotment letters sent to some of the allottees are received back in respect of sites allotted in Hanchya Sathagalli ‘A’ Zone. As he had not received any allotment letter, within 4 days i.e., on 05.01.2006 gave representation to the Opposite party requesting to provide allotment letter. The Commissioner put up a note to his office to verify and submit the file, but thereafter he was not given opportunity to pay the balance amount. Therefore, the Opposite party has caused deficiency in service and thus has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to allot him a site and to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.<br /> 2. The counsel for the Opposite party has filed version denying all the allegations of the Complainant, also denying any deficiency on its part and contended that the Complaint is barred by limitation, is not maintainable and to dismiss the same.<br /> 3. The Complainant in the course of enquiry has filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the material facts as stated in the Complaint. The Assistant Secretary of the Opposite party has adopted by reasserting the version has filed his affidavit evidence. The Opposite party has made available its file pertaining this case. The counsel for the Complainant has filed written arguments. Heard the counsel for the Opposite party and perused the records. <br /> 4. On the above contentions, the following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite party has caused deficiency in not allotting a site to him?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : Answered in part as per the order below.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 & 2:- As could be seen from para-1 of the Complaint averments, the Complainant has stated to had applied for allotment of a site to the Opposite party and had even made initial deposit of Rs.5,625/- and registration fee of Rs.500/-. He has also referred to a Newspaper publication issued by the Opposite party calling upon the allottees to do certain acts within certain time as stated in para-2 including payment of balance amount. But, despite the fact that this Forum observed in many of the cases filed against the Opposite party, the Opposite party without either admitting or denying material facts narrated by the Complainant in the Complaint is in the unhealthy habit of filing a cyclostyled version of denying all the allegations of the Complainant. Similarly, the Opposite party in this case has filed the same set of stock or cyclostyled version. However, on perusal of the evidence of the Complainant and the file pertaining to this case maintained and produced by the Opposite party before us clearly discloses that this Complainant had applied for allotment of a site to the Opposite party paid certain initial deposit and was even allotted a site no.471 of Hanchya Sathagalli layout measuring 40’ x 60’. It is further seen from the note in the note sheet of this file a paper publication had also been issued by the Opposite party calling upon the applicants on whom the allotment letters were not served to pay the balance amount. Therefore, to this extent there is no dispute between the parties and it is seen from the file of the Opposite party that allotment letter allotting site No.471 was sent to the Complainant, but was returned back without service. It is seen from the allotment letter that allotment was made on 25.02.2001. The Opposite party in its version and affidavit should have been fair to state these facts but has not cared to apply its mind and make efforts to prepare the version to the needed extent. However, the things came to stand still at that stage. <br /> 7. The Complainant has sworn to an affidavit that he having after come to know a paper notification issued by the Opposite party on 01.01.2006 calling upon the allottees who had not received the allotment letters to contact them and to pay the balance amount. The Complainant deposed to had given a representation to the Opposite party on 05.01.2006 requesting the Opposite party to issue him allotment letter as he was prepared to pay the balance amount. It is on this representation of the Complainant, the Opposite party directed the office to send a proposal of this Complainant to the Government for it’s approval. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to a note made in the office of the Opposite party on 25.01.2006. The note reveals that the Complainant had approached them to pay the balance amount towards the allotment of site in his favour and therefore the office placed the file before the Commissioner for his approval, but the Commissioner shown to had directed the office to send the file to the Government for necessary action. Therefore, the Complainant was not given the allotment letter by permitting him to pay the balance amount to get the allotted site registered in his name. <br /> 8. It is under these circumstances, we are required to find out the justification of the Opposite party in sending the proposal of the Complainant with others to the Government. The Government letter dated 27.12.2005 is also found in the file of the Opposite party, in which the Urban Development Department of the Government had issued an order to consider the case of the applicants whose allotments are cancelled or proposed to be cancelled for non-payment of the balance sital value by giving them sometime to pay the balance amount with interest and to send proposals of such cases to the Government for approval. It is on the basis of this Government order, the Opposite party found to had sent the proposal to the Government vide its letter and the enclosure containing the names some of the allottees including the Complainant. The said letter on going through reveals that proposal was sent to Government for approval for allotment of sites in respect of the allottees whose allotments are cancelled and it has no reference to the case of the allottees whose allotments are not cancelled. Therefore, the proposal send by the Opposite party to Government has no relevance to this case, because it is not the case of the Opposite party that the allotment made in favour of the Complainant had been cancelled and therefore it had to write to the Government to get the approval. The list enclosed to the letter of the Opposite party as stated above contained the names of 4 allottees in the form of chart, there is a coloumn in this chart indicating the date of cancellation of allotment, but in case of the Complainant date of cancellation of allotment is left blank whereas in case of other 3 persons date of cancellation is mentioned that means the allotment made in favour of the Complainant has not been cancelled. Even on perusal of the file maintained by the Opposite party, we are not finding any order of cancelling the site allotted to the Complainant, therefore the allotment of site made in the name of the Complainant stands even as on today. Therefore, it is evident that the Complainant as could be seen from his evidence and entry found in the file of the Opposite party after coming across the paper publication issued by the Opposite party approached the Opposite party within time permitted and offered to pay the balance amount, but the Opposite party without resorting to receive the balance amount and register the site allotted to him in his favour has sent the proposal to the Government which was not warranted. The letter of the commissioner addressed the Government clearly discloses that proposal of the allottees whose allotments are cancelled are forwarded to the Government for its approval. Therefore, the allotment of this Complainant since was not cancelled and when there was not even proposal for cancellation of allotment, proposal to the Government could not have been sent. This act of Opposite party in our view in nothing sort of evading of their duties and it amounts to deficiency in their service. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for the relief of a direction for allotment of a site and to that extent the Complaint deserves to be allowed. With the result, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and point no.2 in the affirmative in part and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The Opposite party is directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the complainant transferring title of site no.471 of Hanchya Sathagalli ‘A’ Zone after receipt of the balance sital value and also by collecting necessary legal fees within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> 3. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 4. Return the original documents to the concerned parties.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />