Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole,<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint if filed under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, claiming refund of Rs.6,250/- with interest from the year 1992 till the date of payment, on the ground of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice was duly served on the O.P. who appeared, filed version and contested the case. The learned counsel for the O.P. has produced the original file of the complainant for perusal of the Forum. Heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the O.P.<br /> <br /> 3. Undisputed facts, can be briefly summarized as under:-<br /> <br /> Complainant is a retired Lt.Col. from Indian Army, who applied for allotment of a site measuring 40 x 60 ft. by submitting an application on 20-2-92. He has paid registration fee of Rs.500 apart from initial deposit of Rs.6,250/- to the O.P. There is no dispute that complainant was not allotted any site, when the allotments were declared. As the complainant wanted to settle down in his life, he participated in the public auction of “corner sites” held by MUDA and purchased one site in the year 1993. There is no dispute that complainant constructed a house on such site and occupied in the year 1995.<br /> <br /> 4. There is also no dispute that in the year 1998, MUDA published another list of allotment and allotted site no.12326 situated at Vijayanagar, 4th Stage, 2nd Phase, Mysore, to the complainant. As per this letter of allotment, the price of the site was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- and after deducting the initial deposit, complainant was directed to deposit Rs.15,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter of allotment. The balance amount of Rs.78,750/- was to be deposited within 90 days. There is also no dispute that the O.P. has sent a copy of the affidavit, which was required to be filed by the complainant at the time of depositing the amount.<br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of complainant that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the affidavit, he was not eligible to accept such allotment as he had already purchased a site in public auction from the MUDA. Being honest citizen, he refused to accept such allotment, treating that it would be cancelled. It is further contended by the complainant that he received a show cause notice dated 26-8-2000 from the O.P., requesting him to show cause, why the allotment should not be cancelled and the initial deposit amount should not be forfeited. Immediately, he gave a representation dated 14-9-2000 informing his position and sought for refund of the amount. The complainant has obtained acknowledgement of such letter. But, there was no response from the O.P. The complainant was shocked to know that O.P. has passed an order on 15-9-01 forfeiting the initial deposit amount. But, the complainant has not received any such intimation of forfeiture etc.<br /> 6. It is further contended that complainant approached Commissioner, MUDA personally, brought to his notice, the detail facts and sought for refund of the amount. Though, there was assurance by the Commissioner, there was no action. Hence, complainant is force to file this complaint, seeking refund of the amount with interest and cost.<br /> <br /> 7. It is the simple case of the O.P. that this complaint is not maintainable, because complainant has not mentioned his application site no., and other details. There is no cause of action to file this complaint. It is further contended that the O.P. has acted in forfeiting amount as per Rule No.19 of Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act (allotment of sites) Rules 1991. Hence, O.P. prayed for dismissing the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 8. The only contention of the learned counsel for O.P. is that the complainant has not brought to the notice of MUDA that he has purchased a site in public auction in the year 1992. He further submitted that forfeiture is according to Rules and complainant is not entitled to seek the refund. <br /> <br /> 9. Points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> <br /> a. Whether complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with interest?<br /> b. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.?<br /> c. What order?<br /> <br /> 10. The above points have been answered as under:-<br /> <br /> Point no.9(a) and (b) : Affirmative.<br /> Point no.9(c) : As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 11. Point no.9(a) & (b):- We have perused the original file produced by the O.P. In that file, the order of forfeiture is at page no.5 and 6. This is not signed by the competent officer. That clearly indicates that the competent officers of the O.P. has neither passed an order of forfeiture nor communicated the same to the complainant. Hence, the claim of the O.P. that the forfeiture is according to Rule no.19 is not acceptable.<br /> <br /> 12. It is a case of honest citizen, who served as Lt.Col. in the Indian Army, and refused to accept the allotment of site on the ground that he was not eligible to purchase such site, as he was holding another site which was purchased by him from the MUDA. The facts mentioned in the complaint clearly indicates that in the year 1992 complainant was not having any site. He applied for allotment, in quota of Employees of Indian Army. There was no allotment in his favour in the year 1992. As complainant wanted to construct a house, he purchased a site in public auction in the year 1993, constructed a house and shifted there in, in the year 1995. The allotment came from the O.P. in the year 1998. Complainant has produced Xerox copy of the affidavit, which he was asked to file. Clause no.3 of the affidavit reads as under:-<br /> <br /> “®Ü®ÜWÝWÜÈà ®Ü®Ü° WÜívܯWÝWÜÈà ÖæíívÜ£WÝWÜÈà A¥ÜÊÝ ®Ü®æã°vÜ®æ ÊÝÔÓÜᣤÃÜáÊÜ AÊÜÆí¹WÜÚWÝWÜÈà PÜ®ÝìoPÜ ¿ÞÊÜâ¨æà ®ÜWÜÃÜ A¥ÜÊÝ ±Üor| ±ÜŨæàÍܨÜÈÉ¿ÞWÜÈà ¯ÊæàÍÜ®Ü A¥ÜÊÝ ÊÜá®æ¿ÞWÜÈà CÃÜáÊÜâ©ÆÉÊæí¨Üá ±ÜÅÊÜÞ~àPÜÄÓÜáñæ¤à®æ.”<br /> <br /> Similarly, sub clause 2 of Rule no.12 of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (allotment of sites) Rule 1991 reads as under:-<br /> <br /> “12. ÖÜíbPæWÝX A®ÜÖÜìñæ @& ¿ÞÊæ䟺 ÊÜÂQ¤¿áá@&<br /> 1) .. .............. <br /> 2) ñÝ®Üá A¥ÜÊÝ Aí£ÊÜáÊÝX ÖÜÓݤíñÜÃÜ| ±ÜñÜÅÊÜ®Üá° PæàÙÜáÊÜâ¨ÜPæR ÖÜPÜáRÙÜÛ WÜᣤWæ¨ÝÃÜ®ÝXÃÜáÊÜ®æãà ñܮܰ PÜáoáíŸ¨Ü ¿ÞÊæ䟺 ÓܨÜÓÜÂÃÜá A¥ÜÊÝ ±ÝŗPÝÃÜ¨Ü A—PÝÃÜ Êݲ¤.¿áÈÉ ±ÝŗPÝÃÜ©í¨Ü Ÿí¨Üá ¯ÊæàÍÜ®Ü A¥ÜÊÝ ÊÜá®æ¿á®Üá° ÖÜíaÜÇÝXÃÜáÊÜÊÜ®Üá ¯ÊæàÍÜ®Ü¨Ü ÖÜíbPæWÝX Aiì ÓÜÈÉÓÜÆá ÖÜPÜáRÙÜÛÊÜ®ÝXÃÜñÜPÜR¨ÜªÆÉ.”<br /> <br /> 13. As per the above provision and affidavit, the complainant was not eligible to accept the site in the year 1998, as he had already purchased another site in public auction from the O.P. Hence, it is not a case of “default”, but it is a case of “In-eligibility” of the complainant, as on the date of allotment. In such case, the initial deposit can not be forfeited, and the complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount. Any how, complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 14-9-2000 that is the date when he has submitted application for refund. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we proceed to pass following order:-<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> 2. O.P. is directed to refund the initial deposit of Rs.6,250/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 14-9-2000, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the future interest shall be at the rate of 12% p.a. till the date of payment.<br /> 3. Complainant is entitled for cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> 4. Return the original file to advocate for O.P. after appeal period.<br /> <br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br />