BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.
Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1161/2016
Complaint filed on 19.03.2016
Date of Judgement.27.03.2016
PRESENT : 1. Shri Ramachandra M.S., B.A., LL.B.,
PRESIDENT
2. Shri Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Complainant/s : 1. Anantha Bhagawan,
S/o Anantha Raj.V.,
D.No. 328, Vasavamba Krupa.
N.S.Road,
Mysuru.
(Sri P.C. Ponnappa., Advocate)
V/s
2. The Commissioner and Secretary,
HCG-Bharat Hospital
Institute of oncology,
No. 438, Hebbal Industrial Area,
Outer Ring road,
Mysuru-570017.
Opponent /s : The Secretary , Urban
Development Ministry,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore-1.
(Sri P.C. Umesh., Advocate)
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service |
Date of filing of complainant | : | 19.03.2016 |
Date of Issue notice | : | 16.05.2016 |
Date of Order | : | 27.03.2017 |
Duration of proceeding | : | 10 Months 11 days |
SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,
PRESIDENT
JUDGEMENT
The complaint filed by the complainant Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking for the relief of restoration of allotment of site and other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant was allotted a site no 827 of measuring 15 X 24 mt, in Laithadrinagar extension mysore , order dated 29.11.2012 it was ordered by opposite party to remit a sum of Rs. 14,57,100/-total cost of site it should be paid within 90 days and an additional 30 days he also provided with penalty at 18% it should be paid on or before 23.03.2013 the complainant remitted the said amount to opposite party on 02.03.2013 there was a delay of 3 days only. In spite of payment of full cost and interest the opposite party has cancelled the allotment of site. It is alleged that opposite party did not intimate the extension time limit of 30 days u/sub rule (1) of 19 for which it amount to deficiency in service as per rule 2(f) and 2(g) of CP Act. Wherefore prays for the restoration of allotment orders of site 827 and for issue katha title deed and sought other reliefs.
3. The notice to the opposite party duly served represented by counsel opposite party no .1 filed version stated that they admitted the allotment of site no. 827 to the complainant and further contends that in spite of 120 days time granted the complainant has deposited the balance consideration amount of 14,57,100/- there is 4 days delay in depositing the amount. It is clear violation under KUD Act of (1) sub rule 19 there is clear rule any payment made after 90 days in view of that rule that allotment has to be cancelled. For the above reasons the opposite party contends there is no deficiency of service and prays for the dismissal of complaint.
4. The complainant and opposite party filed chief examination affidavit and documents in support of their contention.
5. Heard arguments.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are;
- Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party by cancelling allotment of site and there by proves that he is entitle for the relief sought?
- What order?
11. Our answer to the above points is as follows;
- Point No.1:- In the negative
- Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
12. Point No.1:- It is an undisputed fact that the opposite party has allotted site to complainant bearing no 827, at lalithadri layout ,Mysuru, Measuring 15X24 mt, for consideration of Rs 16,19,000/- out of that complainant has paid Rs. 1,61, 900/- the balance sale consideration of Rs.14,57,100/- has to paid to opposite party by complainant on or before 23.03.2013 i.e., 90+30=120 days, These events is not at all disputed by opposite party. They admit as true.
13.Further the complainant has contended that the opposite party did not issue intimation regarding extension of time of 30 days after the lapse of 90 days as stiputated u/s KUD Act within which the balance consideration of site was supposed to be made by complainant. Here admittedly there is four days delay of payment upon which the opposite party has cancelled the allotment of site. Here complainant specific allegation against opposite party as per section 19(1) KUD rule 1991 the opposite party has failed to comply and they have violated the above provision of rule resulting in cancellation of allotment of site. The complainant contended that the act of opposite party is against the settled law and when they have by passed the principles and rules . It is nothing but a deficiency in service on their part for which they are liable to restore the allotment of site.
14. Here the complainant has made mere allegation against opposite party no material, cogent and convincing evidence is adduced in support of his defence. In the absence of any of these evidence from their side. The allegation and arguments of complainant does not survive, it holds no water. From the above discussion in totality we of the view that the complainant has miserable failed to prove his complaint beyond reasonable doubt for which he is not entitle for the relief sought in the complaint.
15. Further opposite party has successfully supported his defence by way of cogent and convincing evidence , as per the exhibits annexure 1,2,3,4,5,6 it is crystal clear that the opposite party has followed as the procedure and also complied, followed all the stipulated rules and regulation of KUD Act the opposite party by following all due process of law and also by giving sufficient opportunity as stipulated in the act. They have cancelled the allotment of site. It is evident that opposite party has duly intimated 30 days extension of time to complainant as per annexure 3,4 and 5.
16. The allotment of site, further opposite party contended when they have duly observed, all the rules , regulation of KUD Act their Act cannot termed has illegal and against the principles of settle law. In view of that the action of the opposite party cannot be termed as deficiency in service of their part for which they cannot be made liable to pay relief as prayed in the complaint.
17. From the above discussion we are of view that the opposite party has rightly rejected the claim of complainant when such being the case the complaint filed by complainant deserves to be dismissed, for the above reasons.
18. According this forum we answered Point no.1 in the negative and pass the following:
19. Point no.2:- From the above discussion we here by proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby dismissed.
- 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 the 27th March 2017)
Shri Thammanna Y.S., Shri Ramachandra M.S.,
Member. President.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of complainant:
CW-1 : ANANTHA BHAGAWAN
List of documents on behalf of complainant:
1 : allotment letter
2 : Letter issued by Muda
3 : Challen dated 02.03.2013
4 : Demand draft dated 14.10.2014
5 : Legal notices dated 03.10.2015, 09.11.2015
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF OP.
Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP:
RW1- : Dr, MAHESH
List of documents on behalf of Op.:
1 : allotment letter
2 : Cancellation letter dated 23.08.2013
3 : Endorsement issued by Muda dated 25.08.2014
4 : Letter issued by Muda dated 03.11.2014
Shri Thammanna Y.S., Shri Ramachandra M.S.,
Member. President.
