Date of Filing:15.05.2008<br /> Date of Order:31.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF JULY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1136 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> R. Srinivasan,<br /> S/o Late T.V. Ramaiah,<br /> R/o No. 3, Chitra, 12th Cross,<br /> Kathraguppa Main Road,<br /> Ashoknagar, Bangalore-560 050. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Commissioner,<br /> Bangalore Development Authority,<br /> T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West,<br /> Bangalore-560 020. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the BDA allotted a site bearing No. 496, II Block, VI Stage, Banashankari, Bangalore. The document was registered on 7/9/2002. Complainant has paid registration expenses of Rs.23,250/-. Subsequently, BDA informed the complainant that site No.496 belongs to Forest Department and as such the allotment was cancelled. In exchange of the same another site bearing No. 769/C in the same block was allotted. The second sale deed was registered on 24/9/2007 in respect of site No.769/C. Opposite party told the complainant to pay the registration charges of Rs.23,250/- and the same would be reimbursed. Believing the words of the authorities the complainant paid the amount. After registration the opposite party did not take any steps to reimburse the registration charges of Rs.23,250/- to the complainant. The complainant had written number of letters. In spite of it the opposite party has not taken any initiative to refund the amount. Complainant was made to move from pillar to post without any result. The complainant got issued legal notice on 29/2/2008. Even after receiving the notice the opposite party has not complied the demand. The complainant seeks direction against the opposite party for payment of Rs.23,250/- along with interest. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate, defence version filed contesting the claim and opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard on both the sides.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:-<br /> Whether the opposite party can be directed to pay Rs.23,250/- of the stamp duty and registration expenses?<br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that, the BDA had allotted site No. 496 in II Block, 6th Stage, Banashankari, Bangalore under allotment letter and the said site was registered in the name of complainant on 7/9/2002 at the Sub-Registrar Office, Bangalore Urban District. The complainant has spent Rs.23,250/- towards registration and stamp duty. It is also admitted fact that the BDA had cancelled that site after coming to know that the said site or area comes under the Forest Department. After canceling the site No.496 the BDA in exchange of that site allotted site No.769/C to the complainant and sale deed was got registered on 24/9/2007 in respect of site No.769/C in favour of the complainant. The complainant was asked to bear stamp duty and registration fee of Rs.23,250/- for the second sale deed also. It is the case of the complainant that, he is not liable to pay stamp duty and registration charges for second sale deed because it is not on account of his mistake the second sale deed taken place. It is argued by the learned advocate for the complainant that on account of the mistake on the part of BDA without proper verification a site coming under the Forest area allotted first to the complainant and the same was registered in the name of complainant and for that the complainant has spent money for registration. Subsequently, after finding that site No. 436 comes under Forest Area the BDA had allotted alternative site and the site was registered in the name of complainant. The learned advocate submitted that the BDA could have borne the stamp duty and registration expenses instead of asking the complainant to pay the amount. The complainant having paid the amount is entitled for refund of the same from the BDA. The complainant has made several representation and approach the BDA for payment of amount of Rs.23,250/-. He was made to move from pillar to post without any positive result. Ultimately he got issued legal notice and even after legal notice the BDA has not come forward to refund the amount. Therefore, the complainant was ultimately approach this Forum for the relief. The contention taken by the BDA in the endorsement dated 5/4/2008 is that there was no precedent for refund the expenses made towards stamp duty and registration fee. The BDA has taken contention that alternative site was allotted to the complainant. Therefore, it is not liable to refund the amount claimed by the complainant. By the endorsement of the BDA it is very clear that the BDA has not referred any rules or regulations or law to show that BDA is not liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainant. Admittedly, the earlier site was cancelled not on account of the mistake of the complainant, but it was due to the mistake on the part of the BDA. The earlier site allotted to the complainant was cancelled and the BDA had allotted alternative site. Therefore, the complainant cannot be made to suffer though there was no mistake on his part. Complainant is entitled to bear stamp duty and registration charges for the sale deed for the site allotted to him. But in this case he has paid stamp duty and registration fee for two times it is none of his mistake. The BDA could have verified records before allotting the site to the complainant. Therefore, for the mistake of the BDA the complainant cannot be burdened with payment of stamp duty and registration fee spent by him for the registration of sale deed. In the absence of any rules or regulations the BDA cannot deny to pay the stamp duty and registration expenses incurred by the complainant. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances it is just fair and proper to direct the BDA to pay sum of Rs. 23,250/- to the complainant. On the facts of the case complainant herein is a consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Definitely he can seek relief from the hands of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.23,250/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of not compliance of the order within time limit the complainant is entitled to interest at 12% p.a on the above amount from the date of this order till payment/realization. Complainant is entitled to Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF JULY 2008. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />