BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30th September 2013
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.185/2013
(Admitted on 02.01.2012)
Smt.Susheela,
Wo H.Krishanappa Naik,
Aged 46 years,
Rat Mottethadka House,
Kuria Village, Darbe Post,
Puttur Tq ., D.K. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri Sanjay D)
VERSUS
Panchayath Development Officer,
Aryapu Grama Panchayath,
Puttur Taluk, D.K. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
( Opposite Party: Exparte)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that, he is a low income group citizen and belong to Naik community and granted financial assistance of Rs.75,000/- under Basava Vasathi Scheme to construct 200 to 400 Sq feet in Sy. No.226/2B Kuriya Grama Panchayath as per sanction letter and construction order dated 8.8.2012 and he is the beneficiary. Before the sanction the Opposite Party has verified and certified original application, agreement, mortgage letter, original hakku pathra, house construction license, and income and case certificate issued by the Thahsildar. The amount is to be released in 4 installment i.e. after completion of foundation Rs.15,000/-, after completion of walls Rs.20,000/- and completion of roof 20,000/- and after completion of entire house Rs.20,000/- is to be released by the Opposite Party. When the matter stood thus, the Complainant started the foundation of the house thereafter contacted the Opposite Parties to release the installment for further construction but the Opposite Party stated that money will be released in due process but the Complainant continued the construction of the house by taking the hand loans from the relatives and friends. But the Opposite Party has not responded and thereafter issued a legal notice despite of that not released the amount till this date. Hence the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 8.8.2012 till payment to the complainant along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party inspite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party. The postal acknowledgement marked as Court Doc. No.1.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Smt.Susheela (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex C1 to C6. Opposite party exparte.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):
In the instant case, the Complainant i.e. CW-1 filed affidavit stating that she is a low income group person availed financial assistance of Rs.75,000/- under Basava Vasathi Scheme to construct 200 to 400 sq. feet house in the Sy No.226/2B mentioned in the complaint but the Opposite Party inspite of issuing grant order not released the amount till this date and therefore she had availed hand loans from the friends and relatives constructed the house but till this date the Opposite Party not released the amount.
In order to substantiate the above averments, the Complainant produced Ex.C1 to C6 i.e. original grant order issued by the Opposite Party dated 8.8.2012 and office copy of the letter addressed by the Complainant to the Opposite Party dated 30.1.2013 with endorsement and also two photographs and the copy of the mortgage letter given to the Opposite Party and the legal notice dated 13.2.2003 along with acknowledgements revealed that the Opposite Party inspite of issuing a grant order in favour of the Complainant and also executing necessary papers/documentations from the Complainant herein but not released the amount till this date forced the Complainant to avail hand loans from the relatives and friends appears to be convincing. Once the official order has been issued, it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to release the amount without any delay or atleast within reasonable time in a case of like this nature. But in the instant case, it is proved beyond doubt that, the Opposite Party not released the amount till this date to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Further we noted that, the Opposite Party inspite of receiving version notice not bothered to file their appearance and remained exparte shows their conduct and the entire evidence filed by the Complainant supported by documents are not rebutted by the Opposite Party in this case. Therefore, it requires no further proof.
By considering the material evidence on record, we are of the opinion that, the Opposite Party without releasing the amount as per the grant order which amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore we hereby directed the Opposite Party to release the amount without any further delay along with interest to the Complainant to fecilitate the construction of the house. By considering the above aspect, we hold that the Opposite Party i.e. Aryapu Grama Panchayath represented by its Panchayath Development officer shall release the amount of Rs.75,000/- to the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 8.8.2012 i.e. the letter of sanction from the panchayath till the date of payment and also pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party i.e. Aryapu Grama Panchayath represented by its Panchayath Development Officer shall release the amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) to the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 8.8.2012 i.e. the letter of sanction from the panchayath till the date of payment and also pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September 2013)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Smt.Susheela – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: 8.8.2012: Original grant order of O.P.
Ex C2:30.1.2013: O/c of the letter addressed by the complainant
To the O.P. with endorsement.
Ex C3:Photographs 2 in numbers.
Ex C4:Copy of the mortgage letter given to the O.P.
Ex C5:13.2.2013: O/c. of the regd. Lawyer’s notice.
Ex C6: 14.3.2013: Postal Acknowledgement.
COURT DOCUMENT:
Doc No.1: Postal acknowledgement.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
- Nil -
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
- Nil -
Dated:30-09-2013 PRESIDENT
