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

DATED 22^nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

The complaint filed U/S consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP to allot a 30-40 site as assured at the time of booking or direction to OP to pay the value for the said site at present market price, to pay compensation for the deficiency of service, expenses he incurred, for hardship, mental agony and litigation cost.

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

The complainant stated in his complaint that he worked with Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) as assistant in maintaining the record on deputation basis from 2006-2008. In the year 2008, he got retired from the services on the ground of superannuation. During his service at BDA, BDA Employees Welfare Association as announced in view of Suvarna Karnataka year 2006-07 that layout to be formed for the intention to allot the sites to BDA employees/officers, accordingly the association has notified seeking applications for the interested employees and officers in the year 2006. With an intention to get the site in Bangalore, complainant also applied for the site by paying Rs.1,050/- as application charges, Rs.250/- towards registration fee and Rs.750/- towards membership fee for site on 25.10.2006. Complainant has paid Rs.75,000/- twice on 08.11.2006 and 26.12.2006 as a 1^st and 2^nd installment by way of D.D through Canara Bank. Complainant alleged even after receiving Rs.1,50,000/- in the year 2006, OP did not allot him site though he has made several requests orally and in writing. Complainant further stated that the association has allotted the sites to the many of the officers and employees including police officers, circle inspectors, forest officers, PRO’s, law officers who are working on deputation as the complainant. With this only allegation OPs have caused discrimination in allotting sites, not considered the seniority and his services in BDA and complainant submitted several requests to OPs. Complainant further alleged that OPs have caused deficiency in service and also cheated him by discriminating in allotment of site. Hence he approached the commission for the necessary relief as referred above.

3. In view of the complaint filed by the complainant, notice sent to OPs No.1 to 4. OP No.2 to 4 remained absent on the date of appearance. Hence OP No.2 to 4 placed Ex-parte. OP No.1 represented through its counsel and filed version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. OP No.1 admitted that complainant was working in the BDA and he become a member of
BDA Employees Welfare Association and had paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards an advance for the allotment of site along with application fee, administration fee and membership fee. OP No.1 stated in the version that administration officer has written a letter dated 03.03.2022 to the Commissioner of BDA regarding cancellation of allotment of site to the non-members of association which has been allotted illegally and sale deeds have been registered. In the said letter he further stated that on all such cases, Civil suit has been filed before the city Civil Court for cancellation of registered sale deed. Accordingly the administration officer has initiating the action.

4. OP further stated that whether the complainant is genuine member of the society or not is yet to be verified and also awaiting for the final report and about Civil suits pending before the court in the matter of cancellation of all the registered sale deed from the administration officer. OP No.1 further stated that on the basis of final report submission, complaint filed by the complainant can be examined and action can be initiated. On such stands OP requested this commission to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

5. After the stage of version, the case is set down to adduce the affidavit evidence of both the parties. Accordingly complainant filed his affidavit evidence, re-iterated as he mentioned in the complaint. In support of affidavit evidence, he filed documentary evidence which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30. At this stage one B.S. Poornima, 2^nd division assistant of BDA, filed affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.1, along with authorization letter issued by Deputy Secretary, BDA. In support of the affidavit evidence filed 5 documents which are marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6. We perused the materials on record and heard arguments of counsels for both the parties.

6. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought in complaint?

iii) What order?

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

Point No.1:- In the affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

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

REASONS

8. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

9. By perusing the documents available in the record and especially in the version of OP, there is no dispute with regard to the membership fees and the payment he made towards site of Rs.1,50,000/- on 08.11.2006, and 26.12.2006, is not disputed. To prove the same, complainant has produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 which are about the membership fee and the application form he submitted to the Employees Welfare Association and the receipts issued by BDA Employees Welfare Association as per the application No.800 filed by complainant. When the complainant as paid Rs.1,50,000/- as an advance amount in the year 2006 through D.D drawn from Canara Bank and the said amount has acknowledged by OP No.1 by issuing receipts. Complainant being employee of BDA on deputation from the other department worked as assistant in records from 2006-2008. When he was serving in BDA, the office of BDA as announced in the view of Suvarna Karnataka Celebration in the year 2006-2007 has called for applications for the settlement of sites to the employees. Accordingly, complainant has also availed particular announcement by BDA with an intention to have site in Bangalore. Even after 4-5years of the payment, OP No.1 has not bothered to allot the sites to members of the society. Complainant has written several number of request letters to the OPs, in some occasions OPs No.1 has replied to complainant’s request but not shown interest to allot the site to the complainant who is member of the association.

10. After perusing the letter written by the BDA, Employees Welfare Association to complainant dated 19.12.2008 which is at Ex.P.9. It discloses that the association has written request to commissioner of BDA stating that BDA employees association has an objective to allot the site through BDA to the employees/officers of BDA and also the employees working of deputation in BDA. The said letter contents that on that request Government has also sanctioned 45 Acre of land to BDA. Out of 45 Acre of land, the commissioner has sanctioned 38 Acre of land to the BDA Employees Welfare Association. In the said letter OP stated that association has formed layout legally and distributed  available site to approximately 750 members. As per their statement, still 150-200 members are in waiting list, for them the sites are to be distributed. OP further stated that there is deficit of 7 Acres of land against 45 Acre. In case the remaining 7 Acres land sanctioned to association, the remaining 150-200 members can get site allotment. At the same time OP No.1 has assured the complainant that the association will allot the sites immediately after the sanction of 7 Acres of land which is due to sanction. In the said letter OP also stated that if in case the complainant wish to get his money back, the same will be refunded with bank interest. OP No.1 sought the opinion of complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter.

11. Subsequently, complainant has replied to OP No.1 which is at Ex.P.10. In Ex.P.10 complainant replied that he is not willing to get his money back and he also expressed his need to have one site rather than money. Complainant has written request to President, BDA Employees Welfare Association for the allotment of site on 19.07.2012 and 10.10.2012 which are at Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.14 respectively. OP has issued acknowledgement which are at Ex.P.12 and 13. Complainant also submitted letter to the District Registrar dated 25.09.2014 which is at Ex.P.15 stating that complainant has asked the said officer about his seniority out of 61 members retired from the service from BDA office, he also alleged in that letter that some of the officials are in top of the seniority list than the complainant who retired from the service later than him. He sought the list of the seniority from the association in writing through District Registrar. Complainant again wrote letter to the commissioner to BDA at 19.07.2012 which is at Ex.P.16. He also brought his issue to the Hon’ble C.M in the letter dated 25.02.2022 which is at Ex.P.17, office of Hon’ble C.M as acknowledged the same dated 08.03.2022 in Ex.P.18. In turn office of Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department has issued letter  to the Commissioner of BDA on 07.04.2022 which is at Ex.P.19.

12. It is pertinent to note that complainant has approached several authorities for the allotment of site but till now complainant failed to get any relief. Complainant written request letter to Deputy Registrar co-operative society on 18.01.17 which is at Ex.P.20. In the letter dated 06.08.2014 addressed to commissioner of BDA, complainant has stated that even his name in seniority list that has been ignored and allotted the sites to others who are later than him.

13. In pursuant to the request made by the complainant addressed to OP No.1 and the other authorities, through Ex.R.5. Then the Commissioner of BDA has written letter to administrative officer of BDA Employees Welfare Association at 03.03.2022 with regard to the layout formed at Doddakallasandra and Lingadeeranahalli extention, the sites are allotted to non-members of the association as addressed. In the said letter, the Commissioner of BDA has directed to cancel the allotments made to non-members of the Association which are illegal.

14. Upon going through the proceedings of the joint meeting held by department of Co-operative and BDA on 29.01.2022 in presence of principal secretary of co-operative department. The proceedings of meeting discloses that 186 sites allotted to employees/officers of BDA including deputed officers/employees from other departments, out of 314 sites and it also discloses that 97 sites allotted to the non-employees BDA and non-members of the Association. In total 283 sites are allotted. In the said proceedings we got to know that BDA has already issued notice to 314 members for cancellation of allotment by filing suits against them in the Civil court. On 24.08.2021 members of legislative counsel had meeting with Urban Development departments and the said proceedings has placed in Ex.R.6. As discussed above, administrative officer has written letter on 03.03.2022 to then the Commissioner of BDA regarding cancellation of allotment of sites to the non-members of association which has been allotted illegally and sale deeds have registered. On all such case Civil suit has been filed before this Civil court for cancellation of all such registered sale deed initiated by administrative officer.

14.  OP No.1 has stated in its written arguments that  whether the complainant is genuine member of the society or not, is yet to be verified and besides Civil suit pending before the Civil Court in the matter of cancellation of all registered sale deeds made illegally. OP No.1 also stated that they are waiting for the final report from the administrative officer. Here the question arised with regard to the genunity of membership pertains to the complainant and whether the stand taken by OP No.1 at this stage is right or not. When OP No.1 admitted that the complainant has paid amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with membership fee, application form fee and filled application filed as per the procedure. They also admitted that complainant was working in the year 2006-2008 on deputation at BDA. Irrespective of whether employees working regularly in BDA or on deputation they called for application to get membership and the allotment of sites in forthcoming layout formed by the BDA Welfare Association. Complainant has also paid the amount for membership and the advance sital value as prescribed by the association usually made by BDA employees. When the complainant submitted several written requests to OP No.1, the question of genunity has not arised and they have not mentioned the same in the letter.

Upon perusal of the documents of joint meeting proceedings, principal secretary of department of co-operatives has stated 186 sites has already allotted to the employees and employees of BDA on deputation. When such being the case complainant has paid the amount in the year 2006 and with regular follow ups in writing for the allotment of site with the hope that he will have shelter at Bangalore. In our considered view after going through the documents placed by complainant and OP No.1, OP No.1 stated that out of 45 Acre of sanction, 38 Acres of land has sanctioned to the Welfare Association, there is deficit of 7 Acre of land yet sanction to form layout and allot the sites to the remaining members since 2009. Considering Ex.P.10 complainant has preferred site rather than refund in the year 2009 itself. It shows the intention of buying the site as per his capacity is high with complainant and he is waiting to have 30*40 site since from 2006, is unjust and unfair. At the perspective of complainant, it is now impossible to get 30*40 site in Banglore city.

15. It is pertinent to note that complainant has paid amount as other employees of BDA, waited till now, even after several requests made to commissioner of BDA, Registrar, Hon’ble C.M and the department of Urban department. Now, at this stage the question arised by OP about the genunity is unjust and unfair. Hence in our considered view, complainant is entitled to get 30*40 site in the layout formed by OP No.1. Considering the civil suit is pending and the allotment of site to the complainant will be made on the basis of final report submitted by administrative officer was acceptable until the limited period. However now, after 17 years of waiting period, how the complainant can hope to get a site. Complainant is waiting for his site since 2006, we should consider his age as well. In the evening of his life, he should get benefits through his hard earned money invested in the mid age of his life. Considering that OP No.1 has taken too long years to allot the site to the complainant without any proper reason. Complainant and also OP No.1 no where mentioned the actual sital value. In our considered view, it is very hard to buy a site in Bangalore with minimum source of income, that too in retired life.

16. In our considered view, irrespective of any sites available in the Lingadeeranahalli-Doddakallasandra, sanctioned to BDA Employees Welfare Association or not considering the efforts and hardship suffered by complainant, we are of opinion that OP No.1 is liable to allot site formed by BDA any where in Banglore to the complainant with compensation. On the above reasons, we answer Point No.1& 2 accordingly.

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

ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. Ops No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to allot site to the complainant measuring with 30*40 in the layout formed by BDA irrespective of locality within 60 days from the date of order, failing which OPs No.1 to 4 are liable to refund Rs.1,50,000/- with compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- per year from 2006 till realization.
3. Furnish the copies to both the parties, without cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 22^nd day of NOVEMBER, 2023)

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

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