IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.M.G.Hiremath<br /> B.Sc., LL.B(Spl.) - President<br /> <br /> 2. Smt.M.Mahadevi<br /> M.Sc., M.Ed., -Member<br /> <br /> 3. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 56/06 DATED 20-09-2006<br /> Complainant Dr.Jaganatha Raju.P.<br /> Sr.Scientist, No.25, 19th Main, Kamakshi Hospital Road, Saraswathipuram, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> <br /> Opposite Party The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By M.R.S.K. Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Defect in household goods<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 17-03-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 05-04-2006<br /> Date of order : 20-09-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 5 ½ MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. This is the third in the series of complaints filed by this complainant against the same opposite party, Mysore Urban Development Authority [MUDA]. The first in the series numbered as C.D 23/05 had an allegation that the opposite party had not given him notice for payment of balance of the consideration which amounts to deficiency of service. The complaint came to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant had failed to make out a case of deficiency of service. Then, he filed the second complaint numbered as 203/05 in which he relied on a couple of resolutions passed by the office of the opposite party. The opposite party failed to produce the resolutions despite the complainant taking a notice for the production. Hence, drawing adverse inference we passed an Order directing the opposite party to accept an application from the complainant and examine whether the allotment came be made again. The complainant had, also, been given liberty to approach the Forum in case of any deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 2. This complaint is directed against the failure of the opposite party to comply with our Order in CD 203/05. We had directed the opposite party to examine the complainant’s case within two months after receiving the complainant’s application. The Order was passed on 16.11.2005. The complainant gave the application on 9.12.2005. Till the date of filing the complaint the opposite party had not given any reply. However, after this complaint was filed the opposite party gave an endorsement dated 20.3.2006 stating that his application would be considered after the complainant to pays Rs.2,50,497/-. The complainant paid this amount under protest. Now, he wants interest on the principal amount calculated from 29.6.2002 till date to be quashed and also a direction to the opposite party to execute the title deed. He, further, wants compensation of Rs.75,000/-. <br /> <br /> 3. The version and the affidavit of the opposite party merely states that the title deed would be executed once the complainant pays Rs.2,50,497/-.<br /> <br /> 4. From the above facts the following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> a) Whether the complainant proves that the failure of the opposite party to comply with the Order of this Forum in CD 203/05 which act amounts to deficiency of service?<br /> b) Whether the complainant proves that he is entitled for waiver of interest from 29.6.2002?<br /> c) What Order or relief?<br /> <br /> 5. We have answered the above points as under<br /> Point 4(a): In the affirmative<br /> Point 4(b): In the negative<br /> Point 4(c): As per final Order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. POINT 4(a):- From the above narrated facts we now know that in order to comply with the Order passed by this Forum the opposite party should have examined and communicated to the complainant about the fate of his application for re-allotment of the site by 9.2.2006. From the office file submitted by the opposite party we see that the decision to re-allot the site was communicated on 20.3.2006. Hence, there is a delay of about 40 days. Therefore, we answer the point in the affirmative. <br /> <br /> 7. POINT 4(b):- From the office file we notice that the allotment of site was made on 29.8.2000. He had 90 days to pay the balance of Rs.1,18,712/-. No interest was chargeable for this period. However, it is seen from the office file that interest at 18% totaling to Rs.5268/- has been calculated for this period, also. Interest has been calculated from 29.11.2000 at 20% which comes to Rs.1,26,517/-. The office note dated 2.3.2006 states that as per resolution No.14 dated 29.6.2002 an allottee has to be given one month notice before canceling the allotment for non-payment of balance amount. However, no copy of this resolution is found in the file. But there is a copy of another resolution found in the file which is from the meeting dated 7.7.2004. This resolution states that where allotments made in 1994, 1998 and 2001 are not yet cancelled, if the allottee has paid at least 50% of the value of the site, the balance amount can be collected with interest. We know that the complainant did not pay even 50% of the price of the site and as a result his allotment was cancelled on 14.10.2004. The cancellation is subsequent to resolution dated 7.7.2004. Though the resolution dated 29-06-02 is not before us a combined reading of the office note dated 02-03-06 and the extract of meeting dated 07-07-04 would lead to the conclusion that while cancellation of allotment without giving one month notice is not correct, where allotment is not cancelled and if the allottee has paid atleast 50% of the price, title deeds, can be given provided the allottee pays the balance along with interest.<br /> <br /> 8. It must be noted that despite the complainant not paying 50% of the price, the opposite party has offered to re-allot the site provided the interest on the balance amount is paid. Obviously, the opposite party is helping the complainant by deviating from the terms of the resolution dated 7.7.2004. Hence, the complainant is liable to pay interest. We have, also, seen the complainant’s letter dated 27.9.2004, in the office file, wherein he has requested the opposite party to permit him to pay the balance of the price with interest. Despite this letter the complainant says in his affidavit that he is liable to pay interest only till 29.6.2002. Such inconsistent contentions are not tenable.<br /> <br /> <br /> 9. The only question is whether the rate of interest charged is in accordance with the rules. The resolution itself does not reveal as to the rate of interest that has to be charged. Hence, Charging interest at 18% and 20% has done by the Opposite party has to be deemed to irregular. Further, the opposite party is not justified in charging interest for the first 90 days’ period as the complainant was entitled to this time for payment of balance amount without interest. As a result, the complainant is liable to pay reasonable interest from 30.11.2000 till 17.3.2006 [date of filing the complaint] on the balance amount; we feel that 12% p.a. is reasonable. As the complainant has paid the amount demanded by the Opposite party, he is entitled to receive refund of the excess interest paid by him. Hence, answering the point partly in the affirmative, we proceed to pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> A. Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> <br /> B. The opposite party is directed to refund the complainant Rs. 56,350/- being the excess interest collected from him within one month from the date of this order failing which the refund amount ordered shall carry interest at 12% p.a thereafter until the date of payment. The Opposite party shall execute the title deeds within one month thereafter at the cost of the complainant.<br /> <br /> C. The opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs.500/- as compensation for the deficiency in service within one month from the date of this order failing which the said amount will carry interest at 8% p.a thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> D. The opposite party shall pay the complainant cost of Rs.300/-.<br /> E. Give a copy of this order both parties according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open court on this the day 20th September 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (M.G.Hiremath)<br /> President<br /> ¬<br /> <br /> (M.Mahadevi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />