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

DATED 03^TH DAY OF MAY 2023

ORDER

SMT.K.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP’s to execute the alternative site in lieu of site bearing No.334(c) measuring 30*40 feet situated at MKS layout, first stage formed in survey No.15(p), 16(p), 17(p), Doddakallasandra grama, Banglore and to execute the absolute sale deed to the purpose of alternative site allowed in favor of complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Complainant was an employee of Bangalore Development Authority and OP No.1 is president having office in the name of BDA Employees Welfare Association which is registered and incorporated under Karnataka State Co-operative Society Act 1959. The BDA has granted certain land in favor of OP No.1, to form the layout and allot sites to its employees. OP No.1 offered the employees of BDA to get membership and register their name in the said BDA Employees Welfare Association. The main objective of the association to provide site to its members. Complainant stated that he is the member of said Employees Welfare Association, was allotted a site bearing No.334(c) measuring 30*40 feet situated at MKS layout, first stage formed in survey No.15(p), 16(p), 17(p), Doddakallasandra grama, Bangalore and the allotment letter was issued on 12.02.2011. Complainant further stated OP No.1 has issued letter on 12.02.2011 calling upon the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and informed him about the allotment of the site bearing No. 334(c). Accordingly complainant has paid entire site amount of Rs.3,10,000/- to OP No.1.  After receiving the entire amount the absolute sale deed was executed in favor of the complainant and his wife on 26.08.2014.  Complainant stated that after executing the absolute sale deed, complainant came to know that the particular site has been acquired by BDA for the formation of civic amenities site and the said allotted site was not incorporated into the layout plan, prepared by the said association.

3.  The complainant filed the application before OP No.1 to allot a alternative site.  Even after receiving the representation, OP No.1 has not allotted any alternative site to the complainant, and OP No.1 left the office. Complainant alleges that OP No.1 has played fraud in allotting the sites to the members of the said association. After executing the allotted sale deed, he retired from the service and he is not in the said office.  At present OP No.2 is taken charge of administrative work of BDA Employees Welfare Association.  Complainant stated that he paid entire site amount by borrowing the loan from friends and relatives and invested his hard earned money on said site. On several request from complainant, OP did not allot any alternative site to him, hence he alleged the deficiency of service caused by OP’s.  Hence he approached this commission to get relief.

4. After issuance of the notice, OP No.1 & 2 not represented before this commission on the date of appearance. Hence OP No.1 & 2 are Ex-parte.

5. The case has been set down for affidavit evidence of the complainant, accordingly complainant filed his affidavit evidence along with 5 documents. Complainant reiterated as stated in his complaint. Heard the arguments of the complainant. We perused the materials on record.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following points will do arise for our consideration:-

i) Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP’s?

ii) Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the prayer?

iii) Point No.3:- What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

i) Point No.1:- In the affirmative.

ii) Point No.2:- In the affirmative.

iii) Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

8. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-related to each other, for the sake of argument and to avoid repetition we would like to discuss and answer Point No.1&2 together.

9. On perusal of the pleadings and documents placed on record, the complainant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards the site of 30*40 feet, on 08.11.2006 & 27.12.2006, which is marked at Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 respectively. As he was an employee of BDA, he become registered member in BDA Employees Welfare Association formed to allot sites to its employees. Complainant also became member and applied for the site. OP No.1 is the president of Employees Welfare Association and formed the layout to allot the site to the BDA Employees Welfare Association members. On 12.02.2011 complainant received allotment letter from OP No.1, purchase of the site size of 30*40 feet bearing No.334(c) at Bangalore, which is at Ex-P1.

10. The said documents has discloses that complainant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards the said site and due for Rs.1,60,000/- which is to be paid within 30days from the date of allotment. The letter dated 12.02.2011 which is at Ex-P2 stated that complainant has to pay Rs.1,60,000/- within 30days from 12.02.2011. As per the leter of Ex-P2, complainant paid Rs.1,60,000/- to OP No.1.  The total amount of sital value Rs.3,10,000/- has paid by complainant to OP No.1 and the absolute sale deed has executed in favor of complainant as per Ex-P3. Here there is no dispute with regard to the payment of site value. Ex-P1 to P3 discloses the transaction between OP and complainant with regard to the said site and the payment towards that. The crux of the matter here is, after executing the absolute sale deed by OP No.1, the said site has acquired by BDA for formation of civic amenities site and also stated that the allotted site was not incorporated into the layout plan prepared by association. Hence complainant requested OP’s to allot alternative site in lieu of allotted one, which is justifiable because the ground that OP No.1 has taken complainant’s site for civic amenities and that should be complied prior to the allotment. The civic amenity for the layout is mandatory as per the rules. Hence OP has ignored it and allotted the site to the complainant, later it was acquired from the complainant, for creating civic amenities, is not fair.

11. Per contra, asking for alternative site in lieu of allotted site is also fair on the part of the complainant on the reason that he has paid Rs.3,10,000/- towards the said measurement and might have paid by the other members who got sites. After collecting the amount of Rs.3,10,000/- without allotting the alternative one to the complainant is unjust and unfair on the part of OP’s. With all these, OP’s caused deficiency of service by not allotting site in lieu of allotted one, has to compensate to him. Hence complainant is entitled to get alternative site measuring 30*40 at the same layout and also he is deprived by the site by paying huge amount towards it. Therefore complainant is also entitled to get compensation for waiting long period of time to get the alternative site and he is required to approach this commission to get the alternative site, is entitled to get cost of litigation money incurred on filing this complaint. It is deficiency of service on the part of OP by not allotting him alternative site in spite of several requests. It was bonafide responsibility of OP’s to allot alternative one without his request but OP did not do so. It is clearly exhibiting their ignorance and deficiency of service by retaining the amount for these many years from 2014 without allotting him a site even after collecting Rs.3,10,000/- from the complainant. Hence they are liable to pay compensation and cost along with alternative site. For the foregoing reasons, we answer Point No.1&2 accordingly.

12. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 is allowed.

2. OP’s are jointly and severally liable to allot alternative site with the measurement of 30*40 feet situated at MKS layout, first stage, Doddakallasandra grama, Banglore and to execute the absolute sale deed of the proposed alternative site to the complainant failing which OP’s are liable to pay present value market value of the said site with interest @ 10% p.a from the date of absolute sale deed till realization.

3. OP’s are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OP’s are liable to pay 10% interest on Award amount from the date of 26.08.2014 till realization.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 29^th day of APRIL, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;