The Housing Commissioner, Bangalore V/S Smt. Seetamma D/o. Shivananda Hurakadli @ Patil W/o. Mallikarjun Patil, Tq. Deodurga. - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/24

Smt. Seetamma D/o. Shivananda Hurakadli @ Patil W/o. Mallikarjun Patil, Tq. Deodurga. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Housing Commissioner, Bangalore - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. N. Chandrashekarayya

18 Aug 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/24

Smt. Seetamma D/o. Shivananda Hurakadli @ Patil W/o. Mallikarjun Patil, Tq. Deodurga.						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Housing Commissioner, Bangalore Principal Managr, (Alltment), Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore The Executive Engineer, Karnaaka Housing Board, Bellary The Assistant Executive Engineer, Karantaka Housing Board, Raichur						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Smt. Seetamma against the officers of opposites 1 to 4 of Karnataka Housing Board U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to grant monetary loss of Rs. 15,000/- for non-execution of sale deed and in handing over the possession of the house bearing No. MIG-II-A3 59 to award compensation and punitive damages with interest and cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, she applied for allotment of house type MIG-II-A3 59 situated in Raichur to opposite No-3 by paying registration fee of Rs. 1,050/- with initial deposit of Rs. 5000/- on 04-02-08. Thereafter opposite No-1 Karnataka State Housing Board allotted the said house to her vide its notification dt. 21-04-08 with a direction to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,45,000/-, accordingly she paid Rs. 3,45,000/-. Opposite No-3 directed to opposite No-4 take further action, as per the notification issued by opposite No-1, opposite No-4 not executed the sale deed and not handed over the possession of it. Thereafter she got information under Right to Information Act that, the said house was allotted by opposite No-4 to one Hanumanthappa. Therefore she made another representation before opposite No-1 either to allot house MIG. 59 or 60 or to refund the amount with interest. However opposite No-1 was pleased to direct opposite No-4 to cancel the order and re-allot the same house to her vide another notification dt. 07-10-09. Instead of doing it, opposite No-3 allotted her a different house for which she objected and again direction was issued by opposite No-1 for to execute the sale deed and to hand over the possession of house type No. MIG-II- A3- 59. Inspite of it they have not executed the sale deed and not allotted the possession of it to her and ultimately after several correspondence and complaints made by her, sale deed was executed on 07-10-09 and possession was handed over on 07-10-09, there was an abnormal delay in execution and sale deed and in handing over the possession, opposites shown their negligence in allotting the house and thereby she suffered monetary loss, mental agony and other inconveniences in making correspondences and approaching the officers from her native Baglkot, as such this complaint is filed by her for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 to 4 appeared in this case through Advocate, opposite No-4 filed his written version by admitting all the facts stated by the complainant in her complaint. It is contended by them that, due to decentralization of powers to opposite No-4 by opposite No-1, the said house was allotted to one Hanumanthappa in the year 2004 itself, there was a communication gap in between him with his higher officers and after getting allotment order from higher officers, sale deed was executed in the name of Hanumanthappa on 14-10-09 and possession of the house was delivered to her. The original allottee complainant illegally occupied the house who has been evicted through the police and thereby there was a delay in complying the orders of his superior, there was no deficiency in their services and accordingly they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, there was negligence on the part of opposites in execution of sale deed and handing over the possession of house type bearing No. MIG-II-A3 59 to the complainant and thereby complainant suffered monetary loss, mental agony and other incontinences and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed and he was noted as PW-1. Affidavit-evidence of two witnesses filed in support of her case and they have been noted as PW-2 and PW-3. Totally documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26 are marked. Written arguments filed with citations. 7. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of Assistant Executive Engineer of KHB was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10 are marked. 8. We have noted the following undisputed facts, out of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, namely:- 1. Payment of initial deposit of Rs. 5000/-, registration fee of Rs. 1050/- for allotment of house type bearing No. MIG-II A3- 59 by the complainant and allotment made by the opposite No-1 of the said house in the name of complainant and thereafter payment of full amount of Rs. 3,45,000/- by the complainant in respect of the said house is not in dispute. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, opposite No-4 not executed and handed over the possession of the said house in the name of complainant. In pursuance of the order dt. 28-07-08 till 14-10-09. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, the said house was already allotted by opposite No-4 to one Hanumanthappa vide order dt. 02-12-04. 4. It is further undisputed fact that, as per the re allotment order of opposite Nos 1 & 2, sale deed was executed and possession was given on 14-10-09. 9. In the light of these undisputed facts, we need not appreciate the related documents. 10. Some of the documents, which require our appreciation to see as to whether: 1. Whether opposite No-4 shown his negligence in not informing allotment of house type MIG-II A3-59 to one Hanumanthappa vide his order dt. 02-12-04 to his higher officer more particularly to opposite No- 1 & 2. 2. Whether opposite No-3 shown his negligence by over looking the allotment order of the complainant issued by superior officers, he allotted another house Type MIG-II 88 to the complainant. 3. Whether opposite No-4 shown his negligence and caused delay in execution of the sale deed and in handing over the possession to the complainant. 11. The main defence of opposite No-4 for such delay is on two grounds, the first defence of them is that, due to decentralization of powers, he allotted the house to one Hanumantha vide order dt. 07-12-04 but his superior officers, re allotted the same to the complainant. In the light of such defence, we have to appreciate the documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 sale deed and possession memo executed by opposite No-4 along with other records. Ex.R-3 is re allotment letter to the complainant with regard to house type No. 199 MIG-II situated at Pothgal Road, Raichur, Ex.R-4 is the allotment letter issued by opposite No-1 dt. 21-04-08 in spite of MIG-II 59 in the name of complainant, Ex.R-5 is the cancellation order dt. 13-08-09 with regard to cancellation of the house allotted to Hanumanthappa and documents Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7 with Ex.R-9, Ex.R-10 and Ex.R-10(1) are related to further action in that regard. On appreciation of these orders and the correspondences made by complainant clearly establishes the facts that, opposite No-4 allotted the said house to one Hanumanthappa without any power for allotting it, as opposite No-4 not at all produced single document to show that, he had authorization to allot the house to Hanumanthappa due to decentralization of powers, as such we are of the firm view that, the same defence of opposite No-4 is not helpful for opposites to defend his arbitrary action. Now coming to another defence of opposite No-4 is that, due to communication gap, there were two allotment orders in the name of two persons in respect of the said single house. To assertion whether it is correct or not we have appreciated the documents to see as to whether communication gap or it was due to their negligence. Ex.P-2 allotment letter to complainant in respect of house type MIG-II 59 by opposite Nos. 1 & 2 dt. 21-04-08 clearly shows that the competent authority allotted the said house to the complainant by its order dt. 24-10-08. This order was not complied with by subordinate officers opposite Nos. 3 & 4, several correspondences took place in between the complainant and opposite Nos. 2 & 3. Ex.P-17 re allotment made by opposite No-3 dt. 23-07-09 by allotting another house inspite of the allotment made to him by higher authority in Karnataka, is nothing but his negligence shown for non compliance of highest superiors order. 12. Admittedly Ex.R-5 is dt. 13-08-09 is a cancellation order issued by opposite No-4 with regard to allotment of house type No. MIG-II-A3- 59 in the name of Hanumanthappa, there is a lot of gap from the date of allotment dt. 21-04-08 in the name of complainant and cancellation order Ex.R-5 reasons not explained by opposites as to why such big gap took place in between Ex.P-2 and Ex.R-5. Under the said circumstances we cannot accept that, there was communication gap, if really there was a communication gap then, either opposite No-3 or opposite No-4 should have taken for cancellation and eviction of illegally occupier Hanumanthappa from the date of first allotment order issued by the highest authority, such immediate steps not taken by either opposite No-3 or opposite No-4, as such it is a clear cut case of negligence in execution of the sale deed and handed over the possession of the said house to the complainant as per the order of opposite Nos. 1 & 2, accordingly we rejected this contention of opposite No-2 to accept that, there was a communication gap in between the officers of the department. Accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 13. As regards to the first relief claimed by the complainant for to award Rs. 15,000/- as a monetary loss by way of getting rent of the said house, if at all possession and sale deed executed by opposites earlier to June & July 2008. In support of this claim the learned advocate for complainant submitted written arguments and also some of the following rulings for our reference. 1) II (2009) CPJ 356 (NC) Swadesh Singh V/s. Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. 2) II (2008) CPJ 244 Praveen Mehta (MRS) V/s. Delhi Development Authority. 3) II (2009) CPJ 210 (NC) D.D.A. V/s. R.P. Singhal In the light of the principles laid down by the Honble National Commission in ruling cited at Sl.No. 1 & 3 and by the Honble State Commission Delhi in decided case noted at Sl.No. 2, we have perused the records and affidavit-evidence of the complainant in this regard. The complainant has produced totally (26) documents in her support which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26, all those records are pertaining to allotment orders and correspondence made by her and information given by these opposites to complainant under Right to Information Act. We have no authenticated records to assess the rent per month of the said house, in the light of the first prayer of the complainant. The Honble National Commission as well as Delhi Commission gave interest on the compensation amount granted. In the circumstances stated above we are not able to consider the first relief of the complainant, accordingly it was rejected. 14. As regards to the second prayer of the complainant is for to award an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation & punitive damages. In this regard we have convinced that, there was negligence on the part of these opposites in giving allotment of the house inspite of full amount taken by them, as such we are of the view that a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded as a compensation amount to the complainant, we have awarded an amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of deficiency in service and another amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of this litigation. 15. As regards to the rate of interest is concerned, we are of the view that, granting interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 16,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount is proper and just accordingly we have granted that rate of interest to the complainant. 16. The complainant is entitled to recover total sum of Rs. 16,000/- with interest from the opposites 1 to 4 jointly and severally accordingly we answered Point No- 2. POINT NO.3:- 17. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 16,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above total sum of Rs. 16,000/- from the date of the complaint till realization of the full amount. Opposites are hereby granted one month time to comply the above order from the date of this judgment for to make the payment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 18-08-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Smt. Seetamma against the officers of opposites 1 to 4 of Karnataka Housing Board U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to grant monetary loss of Rs. 15,000/- for non-execution of sale deed and in handing over the possession of the house bearing No. MIG-II-A3 59 to award compensation and punitive damages with interest and cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, she applied for allotment of house type MIG-II-A3 59 situated in Raichur to opposite No-3 by paying registration fee of Rs. 1,050/- with initial deposit of Rs. 5000/- on 04-02-08. Thereafter opposite No-1 Karnataka State Housing Board allotted the said house to her vide its notification dt. 21-04-08 with a direction to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,45,000/-, accordingly she paid Rs. 3,45,000/-. Opposite No-3 directed to opposite No-4 take further action, as per the notification issued by opposite No-1, opposite No-4 not executed the sale deed and not handed over the possession of it. Thereafter she got information under Right to Information Act that, the said house was allotted by opposite No-4 to one Hanumanthappa. Therefore she made another representation before opposite No-1 either to allot house MIG. 59 or 60 or to refund the amount with interest. However opposite No-1 was pleased to direct opposite No-4 to cancel the order and re-allot the same house to her vide another notification dt. 07-10-09. Instead of doing it, opposite No-3 allotted her a different house for which she objected and again direction was issued by opposite No-1 for to execute the sale deed and to hand over the possession of house type No. MIG-II- A3- 59. Inspite of it they have not executed the sale deed and not allotted the possession of it to her and ultimately after several correspondence and complaints made by her, sale deed was executed on 07-10-09 and possession was handed over on 07-10-09, there was an abnormal delay in execution and sale deed and in handing over the possession, opposites shown their negligence in allotting the house and thereby she suffered monetary loss, mental agony and other inconveniences in making correspondences and approaching the officers from her native Baglkot, as such this complaint is filed by her for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 to 4 appeared in this case through Advocate, opposite No-4 filed his written version by admitting all the facts stated by the complainant in her complaint. It is contended by them that, due to decentralization of powers to opposite No-4 by opposite No-1, the said house was allotted to one Hanumanthappa in the year 2004 itself, there was a communication gap in between him with his higher officers and after getting allotment order from higher officers, sale deed was executed in the name of Hanumanthappa on 14-10-09 and possession of the house was delivered to her. The original allottee complainant illegally occupied the house who has been evicted through the police and thereby there was a delay in complying the orders of his superior, there was no deficiency in their services and accordingly they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, there was negligence on the part of opposites in execution of sale deed and handing over the possession of house type bearing No. MIG-II-A3 59 to the complainant and thereby complainant suffered monetary loss, mental agony and other incontinences and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed and he was noted as PW-1. Affidavit-evidence of two witnesses filed in support of her case and they have been noted as PW-2 and PW-3. Totally documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26 are marked. Written arguments filed with citations. 7. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of Assistant Executive Engineer of KHB was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10 are marked. 8. We have noted the following undisputed facts, out of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, namely:- 1. Payment of initial deposit of Rs. 5000/-, registration fee of Rs. 1050/- for allotment of house type bearing No. MIG-II A3- 59 by the complainant and allotment made by the opposite No-1 of the said house in the name of complainant and thereafter payment of full amount of Rs. 3,45,000/- by the complainant in respect of the said house is not in dispute. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, opposite No-4 not executed and handed over the possession of the said house in the name of complainant. In pursuance of the order dt. 28-07-08 till 14-10-09. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, the said house was already allotted by opposite No-4 to one Hanumanthappa vide order dt. 02-12-04. 4. It is further undisputed fact that, as per the re allotment order of opposite Nos 1 & 2, sale deed was executed and possession was given on 14-10-09. 9. In the light of these undisputed facts, we need not appreciate the related documents. 10. Some of the documents, which require our appreciation to see as to whether: 1. Whether opposite No-4 shown his negligence in not informing allotment of house type MIG-II A3-59 to one Hanumanthappa vide his order dt. 02-12-04 to his higher officer more particularly to opposite No- 1 & 2. 2. Whether opposite No-3 shown his negligence by over looking the allotment order of the complainant issued by superior officers, he allotted another house Type MIG-II 88 to the complainant. 3. Whether opposite No-4 shown his negligence and caused delay in execution of the sale deed and in handing over the possession to the complainant. 11. The main defence of opposite No-4 for such delay is on two grounds, the first defence of them is that, due to decentralization of powers, he allotted the house to one Hanumantha vide order dt. 07-12-04 but his superior officers, re allotted the same to the complainant. In the light of such defence, we have to appreciate the documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 sale deed and possession memo executed by opposite No-4 along with other records. Ex.R-3 is re allotment letter to the complainant with regard to house type No. 199 MIG-II situated at Pothgal Road, Raichur, Ex.R-4 is the allotment letter issued by opposite No-1 dt. 21-04-08 in spite of MIG-II 59 in the name of complainant, Ex.R-5 is the cancellation order dt. 13-08-09 with regard to cancellation of the house allotted to Hanumanthappa and documents Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7 with Ex.R-9, Ex.R-10 and Ex.R-10(1) are related to further action in that regard. On appreciation of these orders and the correspondences made by complainant clearly establishes the facts that, opposite No-4 allotted the said house to one Hanumanthappa without any power for allotting it, as opposite No-4 not at all produced single document to show that, he had authorization to allot the house to Hanumanthappa due to decentralization of powers, as such we are of the firm view that, the same defence of opposite No-4 is not helpful for opposites to defend his arbitrary action. Now coming to another defence of opposite No-4 is that, due to communication gap, there were two allotment orders in the name of two persons in respect of the said single house. To assertion whether it is correct or not we have appreciated the documents to see as to whether communication gap or it was due to their negligence. Ex.P-2 allotment letter to complainant in respect of house type MIG-II 59 by opposite Nos. 1 & 2 dt. 21-04-08 clearly shows that the competent authority allotted the said house to the complainant by its order dt. 24-10-08. This order was not complied with by subordinate officers opposite Nos. 3 & 4, several correspondences took place in between the complainant and opposite Nos. 2 & 3. Ex.P-17 re allotment made by opposite No-3 dt. 23-07-09 by allotting another house inspite of the allotment made to him by higher authority in Karnataka, is nothing but his negligence shown for non compliance of highest superiors order. 12. Admittedly Ex.R-5 is dt. 13-08-09 is a cancellation order issued by opposite No-4 with regard to allotment of house type No. MIG-II-A3- 59 in the name of Hanumanthappa, there is a lot of gap from the date of allotment dt. 21-04-08 in the name of complainant and cancellation order Ex.R-5 reasons not explained by opposites as to why such big gap took place in between Ex.P-2 and Ex.R-5. Under the said circumstances we cannot accept that, there was communication gap, if really there was a communication gap then, either opposite No-3 or opposite No-4 should have taken for cancellation and eviction of illegally occupier Hanumanthappa from the date of first allotment order issued by the highest authority, such immediate steps not taken by either opposite No-3 or opposite No-4, as such it is a clear cut case of negligence in execution of the sale deed and handed over the possession of the said house to the complainant as per the order of opposite Nos. 1 & 2, accordingly we rejected this contention of opposite No-2 to accept that, there was a communication gap in between the officers of the department. Accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 13. As regards to the first relief claimed by the complainant for to award Rs. 15,000/- as a monetary loss by way of getting rent of the said house, if at all possession and sale deed executed by opposites earlier to June & July 2008. In support of this claim the learned advocate for complainant submitted written arguments and also some of the following rulings for our reference. 1) II (2009) CPJ 356 (NC) Swadesh Singh V/s. Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. 2) II (2008) CPJ 244 Praveen Mehta (MRS) V/s. Delhi Development Authority. 3) II (2009) CPJ 210 (NC) D.D.A. V/s. R.P. Singhal In the light of the principles laid down by the Honble National Commission in ruling cited at Sl.No. 1 & 3 and by the Honble State Commission Delhi in decided case noted at Sl.No. 2, we have perused the records and affidavit-evidence of the complainant in this regard. The complainant has produced totally (26) documents in her support which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26, all those records are pertaining to allotment orders and correspondence made by her and information given by these opposites to complainant under Right to Information Act. We have no authenticated records to assess the rent per month of the said house, in the light of the first prayer of the complainant. The Honble National Commission as well as Delhi Commission gave interest on the compensation amount granted. In the circumstances stated above we are not able to consider the first relief of the complainant, accordingly it was rejected. 14. As regards to the second prayer of the complainant is for to award an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation & punitive damages. In this regard we have convinced that, there was negligence on the part of these opposites in giving allotment of the house inspite of full amount taken by them, as such we are of the view that a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded as a compensation amount to the complainant, we have awarded an amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of deficiency in service and another amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of this litigation. 15. As regards to the rate of interest is concerned, we are of the view that, granting interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 16,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount is proper and just accordingly we have granted that rate of interest to the complainant. 16. The complainant is entitled to recover total sum of Rs. 16,000/- with interest from the opposites 1 to 4 jointly and severally accordingly we answered Point No- 2. POINT NO.3:- 17. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 16,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above total sum of Rs. 16,000/- from the date of the complaint till realization of the full amount. Opposites are hereby granted one month time to comply the above order from the date of this judgment for to make the payment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 18-08-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.