Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant, an aspirant of the sites offered by the opposite party registered himself by depositing Rs.500/- on 2.3.1991. His registration number is 92726. He made an application for allotment of a site measuring 40’ x 60’ and deposited Rs.5625/- on 6.3.1991.<br /> <br /> 2. The complainant contacted the opposite party on 29.10.2001 to request him to allot a site and also to intimate him about the change in his address. The complainant has alleged that despite his seniority the opposite party did not allot him a site. He contacted the opposite party again on 18.10.2004 to urge his case. This time also there was no positive response from the other side.<br /> <br /> 3. The complainant applied for a site again when called by the opposite party and deposited Rs.20,700/-. But the opposite party ignoring his seniority allotted sites to subsequent applicants. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant’s grievance is that he has neither received the refund from the opposite party as sent to others nor received allotment of site. This according to him amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed that a direction be issued to the opposite party to allot him a site measuring 40’ x 60’.<br /> <br /> 5. The defence of the opposite party is that allotment of sites is made on the basis of not only number of attempts but also on the age of the applicant. Further, it is averred that the complaint is not maintainable because of Section 64 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act. <br /> <br /> 6. From the above contentions only one point arises for our consideration – Whether the complainant proves that the opposite party has rendered deficient service by not allotting him a site?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. The complainant has filed the registration challan dated 2.3.1991and acknowledgement dated 6.3.1991 for having made an application for the site. He has, also, filed a copy of the representation dated 29.10.2001 to the opposite party and acknowledgements of two more applications for allotment of site. The opposite party has not disputed any of these documents. <br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has relied upon the allotment letter dated 6.10.2001 of one Shri.B.K.Vasanth Kumar to show that applicants subsequent to him have been allotted sites. It is seen from the said allotment letter that though the application number of the said Vasanth Kumar is 156349 (as against 92726 of the complainant), his registration number is 69613 as against 92726 of the complainant. Further, while the number of attempts of the said Vasanth Kumar has been shown as 4, the complainant’s documents reveal that he has made 3 attempts so far. Hence, his contention that his seniority has been overlooked is misconceived. Consequently, it should be deemed that he has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, we answer the point in the negative.<br /> <br /> 9. It is not necessary for us to go into the maintainability of the complainant as urged by the opposite party as Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act answers the point. <br /> <br /> 10. With these remarks we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> A. Complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> B. Anyhow, the complainant’s seniority shall be maintained by the opposite party and allotment be made in accordance with the seniority.<br /> <br /> C. No costs. <br /> <br />