Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/71/2014

Smt. Yashoda Bai W/o. Mylarappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Commissioner, City Municipality - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.C.M.Veeranna

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

   COMPLAINT FILED ON :04/09/2014

               DISPOSED ON:11/03/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 71/2014 DATED: 11th MARCH 2016

 

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.H.RAMASWAMY,               MEMBER

                                         B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)

        SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI,       

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS	Smt. Yashoda Bai, W/o Mylarappa, R/o No.563, 10th Cross, 31st Main, HSR Layout, Sector-I, Bengaluru.   (Rep by Smt/Sri. C.M. Veeranna,  Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Commissioner, City Municipality, Chitradurga.   2. The President, City Municipality, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Smt/Sri. M. Umesh,  Advocate)

 

SMT.G.E. SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI, MEMBER.

ORDER

 

The complainants have filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the opposite parties (here in called OPs) to direct the OPs to issue the sale certificate in respect of site or to reimburse the amount of  Rs.2,360/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a with cost and to grant such other reliefs.

 2.    Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant in the year 1987 applied for grant of site as she was living in a rental house and she was unable to pay the rent.  As per her application dated 18.04.1987 on passing a resolution, the OP had decided to grant a site bearing No.410/A, which measures 25 x 50 feet situated at JCR Extension, III Cross, Chitradurga in favour of complainant. 

3.     It is stated that, while passing a resolution OP had decided the costs of said site i.e., complainant has to pay Rs.20/- per square, feet, in total which amounts Rs.2,350/-, it is also decided that, complainant has to pay the amount within a period of one week.  The same is reflected in the notice dated 13.10.1987 issued from the OPs.  Further on receiving above said notice, complainant has rushed to OPs office on the very next day i.e., 14.10.1987, and she paid Rs.2,360/- on the same day itself, for which, receipt is also issued.  After this, OPs have intimated the complainant to wait for some time to get khata in her name, as it has to undergo some process for the same. 

4.     Complainant further stated that, on believing words of the OPs complainant waited for few months when OPs has failed to correspondent the complainant then complainant went to the OPs office and enquired about the process what they have said.  But surprisingly OPs postponed the matter on one or other pretext.  Complainant oftenly visited the  OPs office and requested to get her name in the revenue records, but OPs have not handed the request of complainant. 

5.     It is stated that, on 18.12.1991 complainant  made an application to the OPs to sent all the documents pertaining to the grant of sale bearing No.410/A, and also sale certificate in respect of above said site.  But, OPs failed to look into the above said matter.  Again and again complainant went to OPs office, to get the khata in the complainant's name.  But all the efforts made by complainant are went in vain.  Since OPs did not replied to the words of the complainant, complainant's son by name A.C. Ashok, on behalf of the complainant made an application under Right to Information Act on several dates i.e., on 20.07.2011 and 08.08.2011.  But surprisingly OPs did not furnish the documents required by the complainant, for which complainant filed an appeal on 18.04.2012.  On 29.02.2012 OPs have sent a letter to the complainant's son by stating that, "they have not find any decision taken in the resolution passed by the OP in respect of granting site to the complainant.  Later the son of complainant filed a complaint before the Commission in 03.08.2012.  Though complainant took all these steps, all are went in vain.  Till today OPs have not responded to the request of complainant.  Being with no other later native complainant has got issued notice on 18.12.2013 to the OPs under Section 80 of CPC, for the best known to the OPs, OPs have not responded to the said notice.  All these things led the complainant to suffer physically, mentally and financially.  Thereby OPs have committed deficiency in their service.  Hence, the complaint. 

6.     Since complainant paid amount of Rs.2,360/- to the OPs in respect of grant of site as they granted, thereby complainant become a consumer and the said dispute is a consumer dispute. 

7.     That the OPs are having its office and running its business within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence, this Forum is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

8.     Complainant further stated that, cause of action for this complaint has arose on 14.10.1987 when the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,360/- to the OPs, on 20.07.2011, 08.08.2011, when complainant's son made an application to OPs under RTI to get the concerned documents in respect of the site in question, on 18.04.2012 when complainant's son preferred an appeal, on 29.02.2012 when OPs stated that a site has not been granted to the complainant and on 18.12.2013 when the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs, but OPs have not responded to the same, hence there is a delay of six months from 29.02.2012 till today and prayed for allow the complaint with cost.

 

9.     On service of notice, the OPs appeared through their counsel and filed version and denied the averments made in para 2 to 7 of the complaint and further stated that,  the complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts.  The complaint is barred by limitation.  The alleged site is not in the name of the OP and it has already granted to allot another person by name Venkataswamy hence the question of allotment does not arise.  This authority has no exclusive power to issue a sale certificate to any person and it is only by Government.  This court has no jurisdiction for the facts stated in the complaint and there is no deficiency of service does not arise and prayed for dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

10. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and filed 12 documents, the same were got marked as Ex A-1 to A-9. 

11.   On behalf of OPs one Sri. M.K. Nalavadi S/o Karibasappa, Commissioner of City Municipality, Chitradurga examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and not produced any documents on his side. 

 

        12. Heard the arguments.

 

13.   Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:-

 

Point No.1:-Whether the complainants prove that, she had paid Rs.2,360/- on 14.10.1987 to the OP No.1 towards the grant of Municipality Site No.410/A measuring 25' x 50' at JCR Exension and till today OPs have not issued the sale certificate in favour of the complainant and thereby  OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

      

14. Our findings on the above points are as follows.

 

        Point No.1:- Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

::REASONS::

 

15. Point No. 1:-  It is the case of the complainant that, she has applied for grant of site to the OPs.  As per her application dated 18.04.1987 on passing a resolution, the OPs decided to grant a site bearing No.410/A, which measures 25'x 50' situated at JCR Extension, III Cross, Chitradurga in favour of complainant.  It is further stated that, while passing a resolution OPs had decided the cost of said site i.e., complainant has to pay Rs.20/- per square feet in total which amounts Rs.2,360/- it is also decided that complainant has to pay the amount within a period of one week.  The same is reflected in the notice dated 13.10.1987 issued from the OPs.  Further on receiving above said notice, complainant has paid Rs.2,360/- on 14.10.1987 for which receipt is also issued.  After this, OPs have intimated the complainant to wait for some time to get khata in her name, as it has to undergo some process for the same. 

16.  Complainant further taken contention that, on believing the words of the OPs, complainant waited for few months and went to the OPs office and enquired about the process but, OPs postponed the matter on one or other pretext.  Complainant often and often visited the OPs office and requested to get her name in the revenue records, but OPs have not in a position to hear the words of the complainant.  On 18.12.1991 complainant made an application to the OPs to send all the documents pertaining to the grant of site bearing No.410/A, and also sale certificate in respect of above said site.  But OPs failed to look into the above matter.  Again and again complainant went to OPs office, to get the khata in the complainant's name.  But all the efforts made by complainant are went in vain.  Since OPs did not replied to the words of the complainant.  On behalf of the complainant her son by name Ashok made an application under Right to Information Act on several dates but OPs did not furnish the documents required by the complainant, for which complainant filed an appeal on 18.04.2012.  OPs have sent a letter to the complainant's son on 29.02.2012 stating that, they have not find any decision taken in the resolution passed by the OPs in respect of granting site to the complainant.  Later complainant's son filed a complaint before the Commission on 03.08.2012.  Though complainant took all these steps, all are went in vain. Till today OPs have not responded to the request of complainant.  Complainant has got issued notice through her Advocate on 18.12.2013 to the OPs.  OPs have not replied thereby OPs have committed deficiency of service due to the act of the OPs complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially and prayed for allow the complaint with cost. 

17.  To prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and filed 12 documents like Xerox copy of the application dated 18.04.1987.  It shows the complainant had given the application to the OP No.1 for grant of site on 18.04.1987 and it further shows that, B. Mallanna received the application on 19.04.1987 and endorsed that, "DAiÀÄÄPÀÛjUÉ eÉ.¹.Dgï §qÁªÀuÉ ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA.410/J C¼ÀvÉ 25 x 50 gÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß Pˤì¯ï «ÄÃnAUïUÉ vÀgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ".  It shows the application given by the complainant to the OP No.1 on 18.04.1987 for grant of site.  It further shows the said application kept in the council meeting for discussion with regard to the grant of site.  Xerox copy of the document i.e., endorsement/notice dated 13.10.1987 issued by the OP No.1 shows that on 06.05.1987, the council decided to grant a site No.410 A measuring 25 X 50 at JCR Extension, Chitradurga Town in favour of the complainant by fixing the price at Rs.20/- per sq.ft., in total an amount of Rs.2,360/- to deposit to the Municipality Fund within one week if you failed to deposit the above said amount, your application will be disposed of.  Another document i.e., Xerox copy of the receipt shows that, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.2,360/- to the OP No.1 on 14.10.1987. The above said two documents shows on 06.05.1987 the council decided to grant the site in favour of the complainant and to fix the amount towards the site and also issued the endorsement/notice on 13.10.1987 and also it further the amount paid receipt shows that, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,360/- to the OP No.1 towards the site on 14.10.1987.  It shows that, complainant has fulfill the conditions as per notice issued by the OP No.1 dated 13.10.1987.  Another document i.e., Xerox copy of the letter dated 18.12.1991 shows that, complainant produced the original receipt and notice to the OP No.1 and requested the OP No.1 to send the concerned documents to the Government with respect to the above said site for issue of sale certificate.  It further shows that, the OP No.1 received the above said request letter from the complainant.  As per Ex.A-1 the above said site was granted in favour of one Sri. N.P. Venkataswamy on 25.10.1996.  Ex.A-2 shows one N.P. Venkataswamy is the owner of the above said site.  It shows the above site was transferred in the name of one Sri. H.V. Sannappaiah S/o H.K. Vasudevareddy.  Ex.A-3 Assessment Extract also shows that the above site was granted in favour of one N.P. Venkataswamy S/o Late Pakeerappa.  Ex.A-4 legal notice issued by the complainant through her counsel on 18.12.2013 to the OP No.1 calling upon the OP No.1 to change the khata in favour of complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.  Ex.A-5 postal acknowledgement and receipt shows the notice issued by the complainant duly served on the OP No.1 on 19.12.2013.  Ex.A-6 endorsement dated 29.02.2012 issued by the OP No.1 to the son of complainant. It shows complainant son given an application under RTI Act dated 30.07.2011 and 08.08.2011 to the OP No.1 and it shows as per the notice of the Secretary, Information Commission, Bangalore dated 10.02.2012, the OP No.1 gave an endorsement as per Ex.A-6 to the son of the complainant.  Ex.A-7 shows that the son of complainant written a letter to the OP No.1 under RTI Act with respect to the information of the above said site.  Ex.A-8 notice dated 16.01.2013 issued by the Karnataka Information Commission, Bangalore    shows that, complainant son and also the OP No.1 appear on 22.01.2013 at about 11-00 AM in Court Hall No.5 before the above said Commission.  Ex.A-9 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Chitradurga shows the market value of the residential site in JCR Extension in the year 2010-11 was Rs.1,000/- per sq.ft., in the year 2013-14 Rs.1,200/- per sq,ft, and in the year 2014-15 Rs.1,400/- per sq.ft.  On careful verifying the Ex.A-7 and A-8 it clearly shows that, OPs have played fraud towards the complainant. 

18.  Complainant advocate argued that, OPs have received the amount from the complainant towards the value of the above said site and OPs have not furnished the resolution passed by the council held on 06.05.1987.  Even the son of the complainant applied under the RTI Act as per Ex.A-7 and A-8, OPs failed to furnish the documents and they were escaped from their liability and given an endorsement to the son of the complainant on 29.02.2012 as under:

"DzÀgÉ, CfðAiÀÄ®è PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁzÀ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå: 01gÀ ªÀiÁ»w CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06-05-1987gÀ Pˤì¯ï ¸À¨sÁ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ ¥Àæw PÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ, EzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ 06-05-1987 gÀAzÀÄ ²æÃ«Ä AiÀıÉÆÃzsÀ¨Á¬Ä JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¤tðAiÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.  DzÀÝjAzÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ Pˤì¯ï ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ."

 

       19.  Complainant Advocate further argued that, as per Ex.A-2 the above said site allotted to some other person by name Venkataswamy in the council held on 22.06.1987, it shows after 1 ½ months i.e., 06.05.1987 the above said site allotted to the above said person.  OPs have not produced the paper publication and resolution passed in favour of Venkataswamy in the council held on 22.06.1987 as per ExA-1.  OPs have suppressed the material facts and they have not produced any documents before this Hon'ble Forum and the attitude of the OPs clearly shows that the OPs have played fraud towards the old lady i.e., the complainant and OPs have committed deficiency in their service towards the complainant and prayed for compensation and allow the complaint with cost. 

       20.  On the other hand, one Sri. M. Umesh, Advocate filed vakalath on behalf of OPs and filed version and denied the averments made in the complaint.  To prove the case of the OPs, one Sri. M.K. Nalavadi, Commissioner of the City Municipality, Chitradurga examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of the version and not filed any documents in its side. 

21.  On perusal of the version and affidavit evidence, OPs denied the averments made in the complaint.  OPs Advocate argued that, the above said site was already grant and allotted to another person by name Venkataswamy, the question of allotment does not arise and it is not possible to grant the site in favour of the complainant and this authority has no exclusive power to issue a sale certificate to any person and it is by prior approval by the Government and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs  and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.         

22.  On perusal of the entire documents, the Xerox copies of the first two documents shows that, OPs have fixed the value of the site in the year 1987 at Rs.20/- per sq.ft., and also they have received Rs.2,360/- from the complainant. Ex.A-6 to 8 shows that, the OP No.1 failed to give the information with regarding resolution passed by the OPs in the council held on 06.05.1987 and decided to grant the site favour of the complainant and fixed the amount towards above said site.  Ex.A-9 shows that the market value of the above said site.  Ex.A-4 notice shows that, the complainant has issued a notice to the OP No.1 called upon to change the khata in the name of complainant with respect to the site bearing No.410A within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same.  It clearly shows that, the OPs have committed deficiency in service towards the complainant.  Due to the act of the OPs, complainant and her family members have suffered mentally, physically and financially.  Ex.A-1 clearly shows that, the above said site was granted in the name of one Sri. N.P. Venkataswamy on 25.10.1996.  Ex.A-2 and 3 shows the khata was in the name of one Sri. N.V. Venkataswamy.  Ex.A-6 to 8 shows the OP No.1 failed to produce the resolution passed in favour of the complainant on 06.05.1987.  Ex.A-6 the endorsement clearly shows that, on 06.05.1987 there is no decision was taken with regard to the sanction of site in favour of the complainant.  But, the Xerox copy of the endorsement/notice dated 13.10.1987 clearly shows that, the above said site was sanctioned in favour of the complainant in the council held on 06.05.1987 and Xerox copy of the receipt dated 14.10.1987 shows that, the complainant has paid Rs.2,360/- towards the value of the above said site.  It shows complainant has fulfilled the terms and conditions of the notice dated 13.10.1987 issued by the OP No.1.  Till today OPs have not tried to sanction the site in favour of the complainant OPs have received the amount towards the value of the site from the complainant in the year 1987.  After the receipt the application from son of the complainant, OPs have not tried to refund the amount received by them.  Hence, the  OPs are liable to compensate the complainant towards the deficiency of service in non sanctioning the site in favour of the complainant. 

 

23.  On perusal of the entire documents and case records and affidavit evidence, it clearly shows that the OPs have committed deficiency in service with regard to the non sanctioning of the site in favour of the complainant.  We are referring the decision reported in 2015 SCC Online NCDRC 919, by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi decided on 01.07.2015 in the case of Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Munish Dev Sharma.  The above said decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.  In that case, our Hon'ble National Commission has dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and directed the OPs to refund the amount along with interest and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.  Further the Hon'ble National Commission imposed the fine of Rs.5,00,000/- upon Jalandhar Improvement Trust for abusing the process of law and filing the meritless appeals before the various Consumer Foras in order to cover up its own fault and negligence.  We are observing the above said decision, the same negligence has been committed by the OPs in the case on hand.  On the above said reasons, OPs are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant and also to refund the amount of Rs.2,360/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of deposit of the amount by the complainant to the OPs i.e., from 14.10.1987 and also the OPs are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and also cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Hence, we have no agitation to come to the conclusion that, the OPs have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 held as affirmative. 

 

 24.  Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:

 

ORDER

       The complaint filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of C.P Act,1986 is partly allowed.

       It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to allot a site in favour of the complainant within the Municipal limits of Chitradurga Town and issue sale certificate in favour of the complainant. If fails to do so, the OPs are directed to reimburse an amount of Rs.2,360/- along with  interest at the rate of 18% p.a from 14.10.1987 till realization to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.   

Accordingly, complaint is partly allowed. 

        (This order is made with the consent of President and Member after the correction of the draft on 11/03/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                         MEMBER   

 

                  

PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

                                                -Nil-

On behalf of OPs one Sri. M.K. Nalavadi, Commissioner of City Municipality, Chitradurga examined as DW-1.  

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Proceedings of the Govt. of Karnataka dated 25.10.1996
02	Ex-A-2:-	Form No.3
03	Ex-A-3:-	Assessment Extract for the year 1990-91 to 1995-96
04	Ex-A-4:-	Legal Notice dated 18.12.2013
05	Ex-A-5:-	Postal acknowledgement and Postal receipt
06	Ex-A-6:-	Endorsement dated 29.02.2012
07	Ex-A-7:-	Letter under RTI Act dated 18.04.2012
08	Ex-A-8:-	Notice dated 16.01.2013 by the RTI Commission
09	Ex-A-9:-	Certified copy of SR value extract

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

 

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                         MEMBER                      

 

 

PRESIDENT

Rhr.