BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.

Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1513/2016

Complaint filed on 13.10.2016

Date of Judgement.22.08.2017

PRESENT                      :         1. Shri Ramachandra  M.S.,  B.A., LL.B.,

                                                     PRESIDENT

2. Shri  Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B., 

                                       MEMBER

Complainant/s       :                1. Suresh  B.S

                                                S/o of B V Subba Rao

                                                Aged about 66 years,

                                                R/at   20 ,Swimming Pool Road,

                                                Saraswathipuram,

                                                Mysuru-570009.

 (Sri. Shashidhar., Advocate)

V/s

Opponent        /s             :       1.Mysuru Urban Development

                                                Authority, JLB Road,

                                                Mysuru represented by its

                                                Commissioner

( Sri V.Krishnamurthy., Advocate)

   SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,

     PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties seeking a direction to allotment of site and such other relief.

2. The complainant that the inviting applications for  the allotment of the site by the opposite party, the complainant opted to have a site in Mysuru and he has applied for the same vide his application no.346614 dated 23.03.1989 mentioning his address of residence for communication as # 234 U.M. Road, fort Mohalla, Mysuru.

3. Further the complainant submits that he has intimated in writing on 10.07.1998 to the opposite party that he has changed the rented house he was residing and there by requested the opposite party to note down the new address stated in the letter for future correspondence. This change of address given by the complainant was not taken care of by the complainant.

As there was not communication by the opposite party with regard to the allotment of site, even after two decades, approached the opposite party to know his position. Then the complainant came to know orally bout the allotment of site # 941 measuring 30X40 feet at Hanchya Sathgally, B Zone, Mysuru on 23.02.2001. Order of allotment was sent to # 234, UM Road, fort mohalla, Mysuru and the same was returned to sender as the addressee was no found in that address. Further learnt that the order of allotment was cancelled and forfeited the earnest money deposited by the complainant.

4. The complainant submits that in spite of intimating the change of address to the opposite party on 10.07.1998 in writing, the opposite party has failed to take note of it and this has resulted in decline in rendering customer service to the complainant by the opposite party. The opposite party has harassed the complainant, who is a senior citizen, and has deposited his hard earned money towards the EMD. HE was hoping to build a house in the site allotted to him by utilizing the terminal benefits paid by his employer and to live therein with his family members at his old age.

5. It is learnt that the site which was allotted to the complainant was also allotted to another person even much before the cancellation of the site allotted in favour of the complainant. This has resulted in gross negligence and rendering discourteous service to the complainant by the opposite party and has direct nexus for such cancellation due to their administrative lapses. The opposite party has failed to inform even the cancellation of the allotment of the site to the complainant to the changed address. The complainant was in total darkness of the allotment of the site and its subsequent unilateral changes.

6. In the mean while after his retirement from the service, the complainant had to frequently go to abroad and had to stay for a long .After his return from abroad, he has visited the office of the opposite party on several occasions and made a couple of representations requesting for reconsideration of his legitimate grievance. He was made to visit from pillar to post dodging the issue on some pretext or the other. His request was left unanswered . Being annoyed by this the complainant obtained the required information’s under RTI Act. As there were administrative lacunae and lack of service was found in the documents obtained through RTI Act , the complainant has once again approached and submitted one more representation to the opposite party seeking redress. This was refused by the opposite party and an endorsement dated 09.02.2015 was given to the complainant stating that they have confiscated the amount by cancelling the allotment.

7. Further the allotment of site allotted to complainant was cancelled on 24.03.2005 and the earnest money deposited by the complainant was confiscated and the opposite party has enriched by themselves besides being too harsh to complainant despite of their grave mistake in passing such orders of cancellation and hence this complaint is filed and prays to grant relief as prayed in complaint.

          8.  Notice to the opposite party duly served represented by counsel affidavit version and contended that they admit the allotment of site no 941 measuring 30X40  Hanchya Sathgally, B Zone, Mysuru on 23.02.2001 when the opposite party sent  allotment communication letter  complainant and also registered to pay the balance amount the letter was returned with shara. Addressee left, for his reason the allotment of site was cancelled. Further opposite party contended that they deny submission of intimation letter on 10.07.1988. by the complainant. Thereafter opposite party denied all other allegation of complaint and put the burden on complainant to prove the same.

9. Further opposite party contend that due to the negligence of complainant the allotment of site was cancelled the complaint he himself committed mistake and failed to pay the balance amount to the opposite party well within stipulated period which  resulted in cancelation of site and contended that the complaint is highly barred by limitation when such being the case they contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they are not liable to any claim to the complainant. They pray for the dismissal of complaint.

10. Both the complainant and opposite party have filed chief examination affidavit and documents in support of their contention perused written argument , heard oral arguments matter is reserved for orders.

11. The points arose for out consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. What order?

12. Out findings on the aforesaid points are as follows;

                      Point  No.1: In the affirmative

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

REASONS

13. Point no.1:- That the complainant admitted he has applied  for allotment of site on 23.03.1989 and he alleges that intimation letter to the opposite party office in respect of change of address alleged to be given on 10.07.1998 thereafter he alleges that a site  bearing no  941, 30X40 Sathgally  B. Zone Mysore was allotted to him on 23.02.2001.

14. Further complainant alleges that the allotment of said site was cancelled by opposite party on 24.03.2005 .As per the averments in complaint para 8 he specifically mentioned that the cause of action to file complaint has occurs on 09.02.2015. The plea of complainant cannot be accepted for the simple reason, that mere issuance of an endorsement by opposite party will not give raise to new  cause of action to the complainant to file the complaint. This complaint is belated and highly barred by limitation. It is evident that the complainant has slept over his rights for period of 18 years, such an inordinate  delay cannot  be condoned.

15. Further if at all the complainant is aggrieved by act and conduct of opposite party, he should have filed the complaint well within limitation period. Another important point that merits the consideration of the fora is that the complainant has not made any attempt to explain the delay in filing the complaint. On the other hand complainant has clearly and categorically admitted in the complaint para 7. “In which he explains that after retirement from  service, the complainant had to frequently to go abroad and had to stay for a long” this admission of complainant  establishes that complainant was not vigilant over his rights. It also discloses  that complainant was engaged in some other activities. Its shows that only after finishing all his tour to abroad and other works leisurely, he wanted to file the complaint. Here when it is question of limitation Act under CP Act, prescribe (sec, 24-A) any complaint well within two years from the date of cause of action can be entertained, if not it is liable to be dismissed.

16. Further the complainant by his act and conduct has filed the complaint after the lapse of limitation period and complainant cannot act as per his whims and fancie, when it is limitation question, he cannot take up the cause of action as per his convenience.  Here this complaint is highly belated and barred by limitation. Such a inordinate delay in filing the complaint cannot be condoned. When such being case from the above observations, we held complaint is barred by limitation and it is liable to be dismissed on that ground. Hence, the point no 1 we answered in the affirmative.

17. Point no.2:-  From the above discussion we hereby proceed to pass the following :-

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give 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 the  22^nd  August  2017)  

Shri Thammanna Y.S.,                                 Shri Ramachandra M.S.,    

          Member.                                                          President.