BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.227/2014

DATED ON THIS THE 2^nd December 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to allot a site and to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant applied for a site with op by depositing the initial amount on 06.03.1991.  She never heard from the opposite party.  Vide letter dated 04.02.2014, complainant requested the opposite party to allot a site at Dattagalli 2^nd Stage.  The opposite party vide letter dated 12.02.2014, informed that, a site bearing No.241, in Hanchya Sathagalli ‘A’ Zone has been allotted and she paid Rs.3,300/- only.  As such, for  non-payment of the balance sale consideration, the allotment has been cancelled on 28.11.2002.  Aggrieved by the reply, the complainant alleging deficiency in service and filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party filed its version and denies the allegation as false.  The opposite party submits, it has sanctioned a site based on the application and on receipt of the sanction documents, the complainant has deposited 15% of the total sale consideration and still to pay Rs.18,520/-.  Due to non-payment of the balance amount towards the site, the opposite party has cancelled the allotment, as per procedure on 28.11.2002 and allotted the site to another applicant on 28.03.2007.  Knowing fully about the allotment, the complainant remained silent for a considerable period and filed this complaint seeking reliefs.  As such prays for dismissal of the complaint, as not maintainable for the reason barred by limitation.
4.     To establish the facts, the complainant filed her affidavit and relied on documents.  The opposite party filed affidavit and placed documents.  The complainant filed written arguments.  Opposite party counsel submitted oral arguments.  Then this matter is posted for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not allotting a site and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

6.    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 ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant applied for a site measuring 20’x30’, on 06.03.1991 by depositing Rs.180/-.  Since there was no response from the opposite party, the complainant requested for allotment of a site in Dattagalli 2^nd Stage, vide letter dated 04.02.2014.  The complainant alleged the negligence and deficiency in service in causing mental agony due to non-allotment of site, filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs. 
8.   The opposite party allotted a site bearing No.241, in Hanchya Sathagalli ‘A’ Zone and as such complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,300/- on 11.06.2001.  Later, the balance sale consideration has not been paid towards the site, despite of several reminders.  As per the provisions “The Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sitets) Rules 1991”, under Rule 19, the complainant has violated the conditions, by non-payment of the balance amount.  As such, the opposite party has cancelled the allotment of site in favour of the complainant and re-allotted the said site in favour of another applicant, on 28.03.2007 and issued all relevant documents.  Further, the opposite party contended that, the complainant has approached it, after the lapse of about 13 years.  Hence, the opposite party contended that, the complaint is not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
9.    On perusal of the material on record and in view of the admissions by the opposite party, a site bearing No.241, measuring 20’x30’, situated at Hanchya Sathagalli ‘A’ Zone has been allotted in favour of the complainant on 25.02.2001.  Admittedly, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.3,300/- (15% of total sale consideration) towards the sital value on 11.06.2001 and the complainant was due to pay a sum of Rs.18,520/- to the opposite party.
10. However, the opposite party failed to establish by placing documents that, it has demanded the complainant, to deposit the balance sale consideration of a sum of Rs.18,520/-, vide notice dated 05.08.2002.  The opposite party also failed to place any evidence to establish the cancellation of the site allotted to the complainant as per prevailing laws and intimated the same to the complainant. Further, the opposite party failed to establish by means of cogent evidence that, the said site has been re-allotted to Sri P.Thangaraju on 14.07.2003 and issued all necessary relevant documents on 28.03.2007 in favour of his wife, after his death.
11. In absence of the cogent evidence to substantiate the contention of the opposite party, we opine that, certainly there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, in cancellation of the site allotted to the complainant.  As such, the opposite party is liable to allot a residential site of similar dimension, in favour of the complainant, as per law, by receiving the present market value towards the site, in any of its developed layouts on priority.  The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.   
12. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to allot a site measuring 20’x30’, in any of its developed layout, by receiving the current market price towards the site, on priority, within 90 days from the date of deposit of the entire sital value.  

3. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
4. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 2^nd December 2016)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER