BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.80/2019

DATED ON THIS THE 19^th July 2022

      Present:   1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Smt.Lalitha.M.K.,

M.A., B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER  

                        3) Sri Maruthi Vaddar,

                                                B.A., LLB (Special)  - MEMBER

Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

PRESIDENT

1.       The complainant Mr.Srinivasa.P resident of Dattagalli, Mysuru has filed this complaint against the opposite party The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, Mysuru praying to direct the opposite party to reimburse Rs.1,26,500/- with interest at 24% p.a. along with damages of Rs.5,00,000/- and cost of the litigation.
2.       The brief facts are that:-

The complainant in the year 2016 applied for allotment of site measuring 30 x 40 ft. with opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.1,26,500/- through D.D. bearing No.038161 dated 19.08.2016 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Kuvempungara, Mysuru and the opposite party has issued receipt bearing No.69797 dated 20.08.2016.In the year 2017, the opposite party has allotted sites to applicants through lottery.But, unfortunately the complainant was not selected.Therefore, the complainant requested the opposite party to return the amount paid by him Rs.1,26,500/-. But, the opposite party not returned the amount in spite of the complainant approached the opposite party for more than 10 times and the opposite party went on postponing issue by giving false assurance.IN the year 2017 and 2018, the complainant again requested the opposite party to return the money.But, the opposite party failed to return the same.Hence, on 11.01.2019 a legal notice was issued to the opposite party calling upon the opposite party to return the money. But, no response from the opposite party side.Hence, this complaint.

3.       After registration of this complaint, notice was ordered to be issued to opposite party. In response of notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and has filed version admitting that the complainant had applied for site measuring 30 x 40 ft. in the year 2016 and had paid Rs.1,26,500/-, as true and correct and denied the para Nos.4 to 8 as false and contended that on 14.03.2018 the opposite party sent cheque for Rs.1,26,000/- bearing No.623474  drawn on Corporation Bank, SC Road Branch, Mysuru to the address of the complainant.  But, the said cheque was returned with a shara as addressee left.  Thereafter, the complainant has not approached the opposite party.  As such, there is no fault on the part of the opposite party. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.    
4.        The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same is taken as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.  On the other hand, opposite party also filed affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same is taken as R.W.1.  No documents are produced by the opposite party.
5.        We have heard the arguments of both sides.  Both the counsels appearing on behalf of both parties have also filed their respective written arguments.
6.        The points that would arise for our consideration are as under

1. Whether the complainant proves that the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

7.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative;

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.          Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that the complainant with an intention to get allotment of site measuring 30 x 40 ft. from opposite party had applied for the same in the year 2016 and had paid Rs.1,26,500/-.  The payment of Rs.1,26,500/- by the complainant to the opposite party has not been disputed by the opposite party. For having received Rs.1,26,500/- from the complainant, the opposite party has issued receipt bearing No.69797 and the same has been produced by the complainant.  Therefore, the payment of Rs.1,26,500/- by the complainant to the opposite party is stands established.  The complainant got marked Ex.P.4, the application filed by the complainant to opposite party for allotment of site.  It is the specific contention of the complainant that in the year 2017, the opposite party allotted the sites to the applicants through lottery, but unfortunately the complainant has not been selected.  Therefore, he requested the opposite party to return the amount. In spite of the repeated requests and demand made by the complainant, despite issuance of legal notice dated 11.01.2019, opposite party did not return the money.  The legal notice is marked as Ex.P.1 which clearly reflects that the complainant by issuing legal notice to opposite party demanded to return the amount of Rs.1,26,500/- paid by him.  But, no response from the side of opposite party.  Though the opposite party has contended in the version that on 14.03.2018 the opposite party sent a cheque bearing No.623474 for Rs.1,26,000/- to the address of the complainant.  But, the same was returned with a shara as addressee left.  But, the opposite party has not at all produced the copy of the said cheque or postal documents to show that the opposite party had sent cheque for Rs.1,26,000/- on 14.03.2018 to the address of the complainant and the same was returned with a shara as addressee left.  In the absence of the same, the contention of the opposite party that the opposite party had sent cheque for Rs.1,26,000/- on 14.03.2018 to the address of the complainant and the same was returned with a shara as addressee left cannot be believed and accepted and the said contention of the opposite party remained as mere contention without proof. In view of the opposite party has allotted sites in the year 2017 to the applicants through lottery, but the complainant has not been selected for allotment of site, further no steps has been taken by the opposite party to allot the site and to register the same in the name of the complainant nor return the amount, in spite of receipt of Rs.1,26,500/- from the complainant. This itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to return Rs.1,26,500/- to the complainant with interest and also the opposite party is liable to pay damages and cost of the litigation.   Hence, we answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
9.       Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to return Rs.1,26,500/- to the complainant with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of its payment till realization, within 2 months from the date of this order.
3. Further, opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency in service caused to complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 2 months from the date of this order, failing which Rs.25,000/- + Rs.5,000/- shall carry interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.
4. The complainant is at liberty to take action against the opposite party under Section 72 of the C.P.Act, 2019 for non-compliance of this order.
5. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 19^th July, 2022)