Karnataka

Kolar

CC/24/2015

M.Muniswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Suman.K

27 Feb 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 23/07/2015

Date of Order: 27/02/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 27^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 24 OF 2015

Sri. M.Muniswamy,

S/o. Muniyappa,

Dasarahosahalli,

D.K. Hally Post,

Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. Suman.K, Advocate)                     ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Commissioner,

Karnataka Housing Board,

Cauvery Bhavan, Near Mysore Bank,

Bangalore.

 

2) The Project Office,

Karnataka Housing Board,

Kolar.

(OP Nos.1 & 2 are Rep. by

Sriyuth. Sama Rangappa, Advocate)                    …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, MEMBER

01.   The complainant has submitted this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking relief of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the Ops, and also for allotment of site at Harohally or elsewhere near Kolar or refunding the amount with interest @ 24% per annum on the initial deposit and registration fee from 2006 till realization.

02.   The facts in brief:-

        The complainant contends that, he paid Rs.10,000/- through DD bearing No.233013 dated: 27.07.2006 together with registration fee of Rs.550/- to the Op.1 through the Op.2 to have LIG site at Harohalli, Kolar.  And that even after lapse of nine years the Ops kept silent.  And that on 05.01.2015 he wrote to Ops to refund the said sum with interest.  And that the Ops sent Rs.10,000/- by DD bearing No.041144, dated: 13.04.2015 without paying any interest. 

 

(a)    So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand seeking above set out reliefs.

 

(b)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted xerox copy of the letter dated: 05.01.2015, xerox copy of the said DD for Rs.10,550/-, xerox copy of the application form to the OP, together with necessary annexures.

 

03.   After registration of the case and in response to the notices these Ops have put in appearance and contested the claim of the complainant in toto.

 

(a)    It is conceded that the complainant had made such initial deposit with registration fee on the said date.  Further it is stated that, land bearing Survey No.75 measuring 6 acres-21 guntas, situated at Harohalli Village owned by S.H. Rangappa of Kolar was acquired for formation of layout to distribute the sites to the economically weaker section of the society.  And that because of the Writ petitions pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, New Delhi, and because of the pendency of suit vide O.S. No.127 of 2007 before the 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Kolar, the matter got delayed, though the said owner could not succeed.

(b)    It is contended that, the claim for damages of Rs.15,00,000/- is untenable.  And that, the complainant had not issued notice Under Section 72 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act.  So contending, dismissal of the complaint with costs has been sought.

 

(c)    With list dated: 14.10.2015 the Ops have submitted following four documents:-

(i)    Application for site dated: 17.06.2006

(ii)   Copy of the orders of High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, W.P. No.11328/2006.

(iii)  Copy of the orders of Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, Civil Appeal No.7077/2001.

(iv)  Copy of orders of High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, W.P. No.34378/2002.

 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence.  On behalf of the Ops Smt. Manjula, The Assistant Executive Engineer, has submitted affidavit evidence. Both sides have submitted written arguments.

 

05.   On 22.02.2016 heard the oral arguments of the learned counsel for the Ops.  As the complainant and counsel for complainant were absent, this Forum suo-motu granted time to the complainant by posting the case on 25.02.2016 for hearing the oral arguments.  As the complainant and the counsel for the complainant continued to remain absent, it was taken that, the complainant had no oral arguments. 

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether these Ops are guilty of deficiency in service?

 

2.  If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

3.  What order?

 

07.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

 

POINT 1:     In the Affirmative.

 

POINT 2:     The complainant is held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum over sum of Rs.10,550/- from 27.07.2006 till realization from the OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.

 

POINT 3:     As per final order for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS 1 & 2:-

08.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a)    It is a fact that, the said initial deposit of Rs.10,000/- and registration fee of Rs.550/- paid by the complainant to the Ops on 27.07.2006 for allotment of site under LIG category came to be refunded on 13.04.2015, but without interest. Now that, the complainant is given back the said initial deposit this case cannot be a fit one to consider the plea of the complainant for allotment of a site.  However we find force in the claim of the complainant to claim for interest by way of damages.  However we do not agree with the claim of the complainant for awarding compensation to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/-.  We cannot allow the complainant to take undue advantage of the scope of relief available under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

(b)    The reasons advanced for delay on the part of the Ops to respond for formation of layout are that pendency of Writ Petitions.  It is worth to note that Civil Appeal No. 7077/2001 was disposed-off by the Hon’ble Supreme Court way back on 03.10.2001.  And that Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka disposed-off the Writ Petition No.34378 of 2002 way back on 24.11.2005.  Hence much earlier to the deposit initially made by the complainant.   

 

(c)    The subsequent event is the Writ Petition bearing No.11328 of 2006 which came to be disposed-off by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on 26.06.2009.  Therefore we are of the definite opinion that, at least after the disposal of this Writ Petition No.11328 of 2006 these Ops could have been mindful to abide by their own commitment.  If the complainant had kept FD in the Bank such a sum, he could have received interest.  Seemingly the complainant without any fault has been made to suffer.  Hence we are of the opinion that, these Ops shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum over the said sum of Rs.10,550/- from 27.07.2006 till realization by of compensation.

 

POINT 3:-

09.   We proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,500/- against the OPs as hereunder:-

 

(a)    These OPs jointly and severally shall pay the complainant interest at the rate of 9% per annum over the sum of Rs.10,550/- from 27.07.2006 till realization.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 27^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016)

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                             MEMBER                     PRESIDENT