THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1979/2012
Mysore Urban Development Authority,
J.L.B. Road, Mysore-570 021.
Represented by its Commissioner.
…….Appellant/s.
(By Shri/Smt. T.P.Vivekananda, Adv.,)
-Versus-
Smt. Manjula Rao, A/a 53 years,
W/o V.Suryanarayana Rao,
Residing at No.11, 11th “D” Block,
Sapthagiri II Stage,
Mysore – 570 001.
……….. Respondent/s
(By Shri/Smt. U.R.Nayak, Adv.,)
:ORDERS:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant/Opposite Party preferred this appeal against order dated:09/05/2012 in C.c.No.519/2011 on the file of Mysore District Consumer Commission which allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to re-allot the site bearing No.948 measuring 40X60’ situated at Devanur III Stage, Mysore or in alternative allot another site of the same measurement at the same layout if it was allotted to some other persons and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant had applied for allotment of site measuring 40X60’ in Devanoor III Stage, Mysore under an application No.078871 on 05/03/1991 and paid Rs.5,625/- along with registration amount of Rs.500/-. At the time of filing the application, the complainant has given her residential address as No.434, Upstairs, Double Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore. Subsequently, in the year 1998 the complainant shifted her house to MIG 39, 1st Main Road, Sharadadevi Nagar, Mysore on 07.03.1998. The complainant also informed to the Opposite Party with respect to the change of her residential address and intimated them to inform to the new address if allocation was made. After receipt of the said request, the Opposite Party also issued an endorsement to that effect. The complainant after filing the application for allotment so far she has not received any information with respect to the allotment of the site. The complainant further submits that accidentally she visited the owner of the old house on 20/07/2005, she came to know that site No.948 was allotted in her favour on 25.02.2001 itself and subsequently it was cancelled for non-payment of the site value within time. Hence, the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party in not sending the allotment letter to the new address of the complainant in spite of providing new address. Subsequently, the complainant visited the Opposite Party office for allotment of the site and she was ready to pay the amount towards purchase of the site, but the Opposite Parties have not re-allotted the site in favour of the complainant or in alternative not provided any other site in the layout. Hence, filed the complaint.
3. After receipt of the notice, the Opposite Parties appeared before the District Commission and contended that after the receipt of the application from the complainant they have sent an allotment letter dated:25.02.2001 itself through registered post with acknowledgment due, but the said acknowledgement was returned with an endorsement as “No such person”. Hence, returned to sender. Subsequently, with an intention of giving an one more opportunity to the allottees who have not received allotment letters for various reasons. The Opposite Party Authority published a notification dated:09/05/2005 in Mysore Mithra and Andolana and other Kannada daily news papers and also in Time of India, English daily on 10/05/2005. In addition to the paper publications, they have published the same in the notice board of the Authority. In spite of that, prior to 07/02/2006 the complainant has not come forward to approach for allotment of the site. Subsequently, they have cancelled the allotment to the complainant as per the order dated:18/06/2005. Such being the case, they received communication from the State Government on 03/12/2005 enclosing the copy of the recommendation of the Deputy Speaker directing the Authority to consider the request made by the complainant dated:26.08.2005. In response an endorsement was issued to the respondent/complainant on 18/08/2006 since allotment of the site already been cancelled and there is no provision for re-allotment of the site in her favour. But the complainant went on submitting representation to the Deputy Speaker till 2011 and only on 19/10/2011 the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service. There is no any deficiency in service on their part as time was provided to her to approach them for allotment of the site. The complainant by her own negligence had not approached them well within time. Hence, submits to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission.
4. After trial, the District commission allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to re-allot the site bearing No.948 measuring 40X60’ situated at Devanur II Stage and if for any reason, the said site is not available for re-allotment, the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to allot any other alternative site of the same measuring for the same old price along with cost and compensation.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Parties is in appeal on many grounds.
6. Heard the arguments from both sides.
7. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission and the relevant documents produced before the District Commission, it is admitted that the complainant in the year 1991 had applied for allotment of site measuring 40X60’ at Devanur III Stage, Mysore. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had informed the change of address to the Opposite Party and it is also admitted that the complainant had approached the Opposite Party for re-allotment of the site.
8. We observe that the complainant since she came to know with respect to the allotment of the site when she met the owner of the earlier house in the year 2005, she was not approached immediately to the Opposite Party Authority for allotment of the site. In-fact the Opposite Party Authority have published a notification for the allottees who have not received allotment letter for various reasons on 09.05.2005 and 10.05.2005 in daily circulated news papers at Mysure. The complainant had not approached the Authority till 07/02/2006. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties have cancelled the allotment of the site allotted in favour of the complainant on 18.06.2005.
9. We also observe that the complainant had not made out any reasons for not filing a complaint well within time as per the Consumer Protection Act, because she came to know in the year 20/07/2005 that the site was allotted and from that day she has not filed any complaint within two years. We observe that the complainant also not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint before District Commission. In the memorandum of complaint, we notice that she writes the complaint is well within time, but it cannot be accepted. Because merely making correspondence for allotment of the site will not suffice to create cause of action. When she came to know about the cancellation of the allotment on 18/06/2005 she supposed to file a complaint, instead of that she was making representations to the Deputy Speaker, Ministers till 2011 and she filed a complaint only in the year 2011 that too after lapse of five years.
10. The complainant had not utilized the time provided by the Opposite Party for re-allotment of the site and on the other hand had not filed a complaint within two years of the rejection of the allotment. For these two grounds, the complaint has to be dismissed. But the District Commission made an error in not considering the limitation for filing the complaint and also not considered the time provided by the Opposite Party for allotment of the site to the complainant. Hence, it is purely negligence on the part of complainant in not utilizing the time provided by the Opposite Party for re-allotment of the site. As such the complaint has to be dismissed. Accordingly,
:ORDER:
The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
The impugned order dated:09/05/2012 passed by the Mysuru District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.519/2011 is set-aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Return the LCR forthwith to the concerned District Commission.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
