Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant applied for allotment of a site measuring 40’ x 60’ from the O.P. in the year 1990-91 by paying registration fee of Rs.500/- and initial deposit of Rs.5,625/-. In the year 1994, he changed the residence and intimated the same to the O.P. on 16-3-1994.<br /> 2. While he was waiting for allotment of site in January 2005, he learnt that the O.P. had invited applications for allotment of sites in Vasanthnagar layout. He, also, learnt from his friends that the O.P. had refunded the initial deposit to those who had applied in the year 1990-91 and had given them a seniority number. This came as a shock to him as he had not received the refund from the O.P. With a view to find out the correct position he went to O.P.’s office where he was told that he had been allotted a site in the year 2001-02 and then cancelled as the allotment letter sent to his address in their records had returned with an endorsement that the complainant was not found in that address. He showed the official in the O.P.’s office the acknowledgement issued by the office for having received the letter intimating the change in address.<br /> 3. The complainant followed up with the O.P. submitting representations ion 1-2-05, 27-7-05, 10-8-05 and 17-8-05. However, the O.P. gave an endorsement on 5-8-05 stating that as the allotment was cancelled on 14-12-03 his request can not be considered. The complainant has submitted that had the O.P. given this letter earlier, he could have applied for a site in Vasanthanagar layout and the delay in issuing such letter deprived him an opportunity to make one more attempt. The complainant says that this loss of opportunity coupled with loss of seniority, and the mistake in not effecting the change in address despite giving an application to that effect are acts of deficiency. He has prayed for restoration of the site allotted to him at the rate prevailing at that time and also for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and cost of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> 4. In the version, the O.P. has denied that the complainant ever intimated the change of address to his office, but has admitted allotment of site to him and its cancellation subsequently. There is, also, a technical objection that the complaint is hit by section 64 of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act.<br /> 5. From the above contentions the following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> a) Whether the complainant proves that cancellation of the site allotted to him amounts to deficiency in service?<br /> b) Whether the O.P. proves that the allotment was cancelled in accordance with the Rules?<br /> c) What order or relief?<br /> 6. We have answered the above points as under:-<br /> Point no.5(a): In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.5(b): In the negative.<br /> Point no.5(c): As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Points no. 5(a):- The complainant’s application for allotment of site on 6-3-1991 is not in dispute. So also, the factum of allotment of site on 6-10-2001 and its cancellation ion 14-2-2003. The dispute is with regard to the intimation of change in address given to the O.P.’s office on 16-3-1994. The complainant has produced an acknowledgement said to have been given by the O.P.’s office for having received his letter intimating the change in address. The acknowledgement is on a scrap of white paper, literally. The O.P. flatly denied receiving the intimation of change in address from the complainant in his version, additional affidavit filed by the Assistant Secretary, and in the oral evidence adduced by the Assistant Secretary. In the additional affidavit it is stated that the acknowledgement is a “created and concocted document to obtain wrongful gain”. In his oral evidence the Assistant Secretary went on to state that their office was not issuing such an acknowledgement as there was no provision to issue acknowledgement on blank paper. He further stated that whenever an application is submitted at their office an acknowledgement letter was given called “Sweekruthi patra”. He categorically stated that they maintained a separate register to record the applications received intimating the change in address. He also stated that their office used only Kannada rubber stamps and the signature on the acknowledgement produced by the complainant is not that of an official of their office.<br /> 8. It is essential to reproduce a few more utterances of the Assistant Secretary during his cross-examination. He said “there is a notice on the notice board, that change of address application should be given in the prescribed form. The notice board is fixed near the reception counter. When ever representation is received, it is given specific number and entered in the register. It is not true that complainant had submitted an application on 16-3-1994. I have verified the records and the register and I found that receipt produced by the complainant was false. Hence I filed affidavit dated 5-1-2006. I have examined the inward register and did not find the name of the complainant. I have no objection to produce such register”.<br /> 9. The above categorical assertions by the Assistant Secretary prompted the complainant to file an application summoning the inward register from the O.P.’s office, and the news paper advertisement by which certain sites including that of the complainant were cancelled. Representative of complainant filed a memorandum of facts stating that his organization “Karnataka Consumer Forum” would not let the complainant to have unlawful gain, if it was proved that the complainant had produced a fraudulent acknowledgement. He prayed that since the O.P. had not produced any documents, which he relied upon in oral evidence, and did not produce those documents despite his direct notice through speed post, it should be regarded that the assertions made in the additional affidavit and oral evidence must be treated as an attempt to mislead the Forum and proceedings for perjury must be initiated against him. <br /> 10. After the complainant filed the notice summoning the inward register four register were produced. But they did not contain relevant entries, time was granted for producing relevant documents which were produced later on. And it was found that the inward register did contain the complainant’s name confirming the complainant’s contention that the change in address was intimated to the O.P. The entry in the inward register thus came as an anticlimax to the forceful assertion of the O.P. Should we allow a high ranking official to make unconfirmed statements under oath repeatedly and get away with it? The Assistant Secretary virtually labeled the complainant a “liar”, apart from denying him his rightful claim. It is obvious that the statement made under the oath in the additional affidavit and oral evidence were made irresponsibly without verifying the records. Indeed there is some force in the complainants agreement that there is difference between an individual stating falsehood under oath and an authority stating falsehood under oath, particularly when such falsehood of the authority leads to deprivation of a right which he had acquired after patiently waiting for 12 years, though stating falsehood under oath, whether by an individual or authority is a serious matter the case on hand is quite different had the statements under oath made by the Assistant Secretary been accepted by us it would have resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we have to take the matter seriously and take befitting action. So far as the complainant is concerned it is clear that he is entitled to the site he was allotted or to an alternative site, if the allotted site is already reallotted, or adequate amount of compensation if no site is available with the O.P. Needless to say that the allotment made to the complainant was illegally cancelled despite his giving intimation of change in address. Therefore we answer the point in the affirmative.<br /> 11. The complainant expressed serious doubts whether the O.P. really sent the allotment letter dated 6-10-2001, his contention is that the “window envelope” found in the office file submitted by the O.P. is not the envelope in which the allotment letter was sent. The reason for his apprehension is that while the date of dispatch of the allotment letter is 23-11-2001. The date found on the envelope is 5-12-2001. His agreement is that some envelope has been kept in the file as evidence of dispatch of the allotment letter. Similarly he has seriously contested the dispatch of letter canceling the allotment. It is because while the date of dispatch of letter has been shown as 24-4-2003 the postal stamp on the envelope is dated 6-6-2003 the O.P. has produced speed post Booking register to show that the letter canceling allotment of site was sent on 24-5-03. The speed post article number in the journal matches with the sticker on the envelope. In any case we have no reason to doubt the dispatch of the allotment letter and the allotment cancellation letter. Hence, the complainant’s apprehension in this regard is unfounded.<br /> 12. Point no.5(b):- We have already come to the conclusion that the cancellation of the allotment of the site made to the complainant as illegal. He has adequately proved that the O.P. wrongly sent the allotment letter and the allotment cancellation letter to his old address despite intimating the change in address. We have also concluded that the O.P. either by ignorance or by design tried to snatch away the right of the complainant. Neither ignorance nor design it pardonable. It is no secrete that citizens have to wait for a good number of years to get a site from the O.P. if an affidavit and oral evidence of a high ranking official were to snatch away the right of citizen nothing can be more unfortunate than this. We have no hesitation in concluding that the cancellation of allotment is not in accordance with the rules. Hence, we answer the point in the negative.<br /> 13. We are extremely perturbed at the conduct of the O.P. The O.P. has a social responsibility and he can not deprive the citizens of their rightful claim. The responsibility extends not only to make the allotments in accordance with law, but also to ensure that no injustice is done to a rightful claimant. The complainant in this case has barely managed to retain his right by the skin of his teeth. If the inward register had not been produced, the complainant would have lost the opportunity of owing a site which is a much cherished dream of the citizens. It would, also, have resulted in loss of seniority. Thus grave injustice would have been caused to him. In Brij Pal Sharma Vs. Gaziabad Development Authority 2005 CTJ 1191 (SC) (CP). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that Statutory Authority like Gaziabad Development Authority being a “STATE” within the ambit of Article 12 of Constitution of India, is duly bound to act in the Public Interest, over looking the private interest. We could have initiated proceedings for perjury. However, we would like to give only a wake up call to the O.P. this time, by imposing additional damages.<br /> 14. While giving relief to the complainant we have given sufficient number of alternatives for allotment of a site to him. However, if the O.P. fails to allot a site to him, he becomes entitled to monetary relief that is necessary to enable him to buy a similar site in open market. We are aware that a similar site costs much more in Mysore. However, Rs.8 lakhs is deemed reasonable to meet the ends of justice. As already noticed the complainant having patiently waited for the site nearly lost it. Though he got a allotment he was deprived of the site for over 5 years. Keeping in view the loss of enjoyment, escalation in the cost of construction, we hold that he is entitled to reasonable amount as damages. With these observation we proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The O.P. is directed to handover the possession of site no.986 at Devanur III Stage, as per the letter of allotment dated 6-10-2001 and execute all required documents.<br /> 3. In the alternative, if the above mentioned site is already reallotted to some other person, the O.P. shall allot a another site measuring 40’x60’ site in a similar locality to the complainant. Such allotment shall be for the same price, as per order dated 6-10-2001. Such allotment shall be made within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> 4. If O.P. fails to allot any site, as directed in the above para, the O.P. is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant for wrongful cancellation and his allotment.<br /> 5. The O.P. shall pay this amount of Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of 2 months, failing which such amount shall carry future interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from such date till the date of payment. Any how, in case of such payment, the complainant is not entitled to claim refund of initial deposit.<br /> 6. As the Assistant Secretary has filed false affidavit, and deposed falsely, additional damages have been awarded to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. This amount is payable by the O.P. Out of this amount an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as special damage and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be credited to the “Consumer Welfare Fund Account” maintained in this Forum. Any how, the O.P. is entitled to recover this amount of Rs.10,000/- from such an office. If this amount is not deposited in the Forum, within a period of 2 months, it shall carry future interest at the rate of 7% p.a. till the date of payment.<br /> 7. O.P. is directed to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant apart from the above amount, within a period of 2 months, failing which it shall carry future interest at the rate of 7% p.a. till the date of payment.<br /> 8. The O.P. shall pay the complainant cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> 9. Send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.<br /> 10. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br />