BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 2^nd DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019(herein under referred as an Act) for the following reliefs against the OP:-

(a) Direct the OP to allot an alternative site in the same layout without delay.

(b) Alternatively, direct the OP to refund the sale consideration of Rs.64,000/- and Rs.20,000/- paid on 04.05.2021 and legal expenses Rs.50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a.

(c) Direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- to the complainant towards present market value of the site and for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant.

(d) Pass such other order or orders as may be just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant has purchased site bearing No.103 measuring 40 x 60 ft. from the OP under the registered sale dated 19.10.1993 by paying consideration amount of Rs.64,000/-. In the month of May 2001, OP demanded and received additional deposit of Rs.20,000/- under receipt dated 04.05.2001.  The OP issued a NOC on 01.12.2001.

  3. It is further case of the complainant that from 2002 onwards, the complainant made several attempt to construct compound wall and shed in the above site.  But, in the month of June, 2007 complainant received a notice from BBMP that katha in respect of above site would be cancelled.  The complainant submitted reply to BBMP.  In the month of December, 2010, the complainant was succeeded in constructing the compound wall with gate and erected the shed.  But, some unknown persons demolished the compound wall and gate in the month of June, 2011.  On 03.02.2015 on receipt of credible information that somebody has constructed a compound wall in the above said, the complainant rushed to the site and noticed some labourers and mansion doing the construction work.  He lodged a complaint with Rajarajeshwari Police on 05.02.2015 and requested the police to prevent the construction work.  Subsequently, he came to know that a site No.6 sold to other persons and site No.6 includes part of site No.103 and part of site No.102.  Naveen claiming as absolute owner, claimed that he has purchased site from Nagaraju on 22.03.2007.  Later on, complainant filed OS 1085/2011 for permanent injunction and he got withdrawn the suit on 03.03.2015.

4. The value of the site has been increased upto Rs.90,00,000/-.  The OP despite notice dated 10.02.2020 failed to refund Rs.64,000/- and compensation.  The act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, this complaint.

  5. Despite receipt of notice, the OP failed to appear before this Commission and OP has been placed exparte. 

 5. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and relies on 16 documents.  Heard the arguments of advocate for the complainant.  On 11.02.2022, the complainant filed a memo through his advocate for no pressing prayer para (1) seeking direction against OP to allot alternative site in the same layout without delay. 

6. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the negative.

      Point No.2: Does not survive for consideration

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

8. Point No.1:  Even though OP failed to appear and contest the matter.  But, it is the duty of this Commission to consider all the legal aspects including the facts of the case. 
9. The complainant reiterated the facts stated in the complaint and relies on 16 documents.  It is proved from document No.1 registered sale deed dated 19.10.1993, the complainant has purchased site bearing No.103 measuring East-west 40 ft. and North-sought 60 ft. by paying consideration amount of Rs.64,000/-.  The sale deed clearly indicates that the complainant was put in possession of site purchased by him.  Similarly, an endorsement has been issued to the complainant on 29.07.1994.  It is pertinent to note that the possession certificate for having delivered the possession of site bearing No.103 to the complainant came to be issued on 25.10.1993.  It is also proved that the complainant was forced to pay additional sum of Rs.20,000/- on 04.05.2001.  The OP issued an endorsement dated 01.12.2001 stating that the complainant has paid full amount towards cost of the site.
10.  It is admitted by the complainant and borne out from the notice issued by BBMP dated 07.06.2007 that as per the order of the Supreme Court of India, the Khatha of the complainant in respect of site No.103 was required to be cancelled.  It is borne out from the document No.7 dated 16.02.2005 Mr.Naveen and Dr.Ramakrishna sold site No.106 in favour of Sri Ravishnkar Rajgopa under registered sale deed.  Subsequently, the complainant issued a notice dated 02.12.2019 to the OP, also issued another letter dated 12.12.2019, legal notice dated 10.02.2020 and called upon the OP to refund Rs.64,000/- + Rs.20,000/- stating that OP allotted the site with defective title.  So far as defective title as alleged by the complainant cannot be decided by this Commission.
11. According to the complainant, he came to know about problem with the site in the year 2010-11 and filed OS No.1085/2011.  But he got withdrawn the suit on 03.03.2015.  Despite all these developments and letter of BBMP dated 07.06.2017, the complainant has not filed any complaint within two years atleast from 03.03.2015.  The subsequent issuance of letters and legal notice dated 10.02.2020 does not save the limitation.  The Hon’ble National Commission in the following decision categorically ruled that subsequent issuance of notice does not save the limitation. 

I (2015) CPJ 105 (NC) in the matter between Pappu Mangaratanam Vs. Sai Sha Finance and Chits and another – categorically ruled that Section 24A, 21(b) – Limitation – condonation of delay, service of legal notice not extend period of limitation – cause of action arose on 01.04.2001 when complainant deposited sum of Rs.3,45,000/- as fixed deposit for one year – plea of complainant that cause of action will arise from date of service of legal notice dated 20.05.2004, not accepted – complaint barred by limitation.

12. Apart from the limitation, the complainant has not placed any material to show that site No.6 is curved from the part of site Nos.103 and 102.  Even though, complainant does not press prayer para (1) with regard to the alternative site.  But, the complainant is not right in saying that OP has committed deficiency of service by non-refunding Rs.64,000/- + Rs.20,000/-.  It is relevant to note that the legality or otherwise of the sale deed of the complainant dated 09.10.1993 cannot be considered by this Commission.  The complainant has utterly failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OP.  On the point of limitation alone, the complaint requires to be dismissed.   
13. Point No.2:- In view of the discussion referred above, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
14. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion made in point Nos.1 and 2, the complaint requires to be dismissed.   We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed without costs.
2. The complainant is at liberty to take steps against OP by filing civil suit.
3. Furnish the copy of this order and return the documents to both the parties with extra pleadings.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 2^nd March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-