Date of Filing:18.03.2008<br /> Date of Order:31.05.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF MAY 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 /> COMPLAINT NO: 723 OF 2008<br /> <br /> K.V.Krishnappa,<br /> No.23(104), 6th Main Road, <br /> 5th Cross, Sampangiramnagar,<br /> Bangalore-27. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. The Commissioner,<br /> Bangalore Development Authority,<br /> KP West, Bangalore-01.<br /> <br /> 2. The Deputy Secretary-4,<br /> Bangalore Development Authority,<br /> KP West, Bangalore-01.<br /> <br /> 3. The Executive Engineer,<br /> North Division, BDA,<br /> BDA Complex, RT Nagar,<br /> Bangalore. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requesting that direction be issued to opposite party No.3 to send correct dimension report to the office of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 to pay Rs.50,000/- towards physical tension and mental agony and costs of proceedings.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant was allotted site by the BDA in the year 2002. The opposite party No.3 has not send the CD report. Legal notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party No.3 has failed to send the CD report. Therefore the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum the opposite parties have appeared through advocate and submitted defence version stating that CD report has been sent by opposite party No.3 to the opposite party No.1 on 11/4/2008 and a copy of the same has also been sent to the complainant through registered post. Hence the purpose of filing the complaint has been served. The opposite parties have complied with the request. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and opposite parties requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Arguments are heard. <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 4. The learned advocate for the complainant fairly submitted that as regards the first prayer of the complainant has been complied with. Opposite party No.3 has sent the CD report to the opposite party No.1. Therefore, the complainant got the main relief after filing the present complaint. The learned advocate submitted that for the delay in submitting CD report the opposite party No.3 i.e. Executive Engineer shall be held responsible and he shall be ordered to pay the costs and compensation for the harassment, mental tension, delay etc.,. It is no doubt true that the site was allotted to the complainant in the year 2002. It is the duty of the opposite party opposite party No.3 to send the CD report promptly. The opposite party No.3 has made unreasonable delay in sending CD report. This type of attitude on the part of the opposite party No.3 is not proper. He could have acted promptly and discharged the duties as per law under the provisions of the BDA Act. The opposite parties have slept over the matter for so many years and after filing the complaint they have acted promptly and steps were taken. Opposite party No.3 had sent the CD report on 11/4/2008. The officials of the opposite party No.1 are expected to discharge their duties in accordance with the law without giving any room for the complaint to be lodged against them. Public servants are supposed to serve the people and work for the welfare and wellbeing of the people. In this case, the opposite party No.3 had made unreasonable delay in submitting CD report to the opposite party No.3. Therefore, he should be made responsible for payment of costs and some nominal compensation to the complainant for the mental agony, tension and delay caused in submitting CD report. I feel the ends of justice will be met in directing the opposite party No.3 to pay Rs.500/- as compensation to the complainant. The opposite party No.3 shall also liable to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings to the complainant. The complainant has sought an award of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, but this is not a case to award that much of compensation. The ends of justice will be met in awarding a nominal compensation to the complainant. So that it will be a warning to the public servants to act promptly and discharge their duties in accordance with law without giving any scope to the public to file complaint against them for deficiency in service. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party No.3 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant. The opposite party No.3 has to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order. The amount to sent to the complainant directly by way of DD or cheque with intimation to this Forum.<br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF MAY 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />