BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE URBAN

1^st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The Complaint seeks the following directions against the OP:-

(a) Allow the complaint filed by the complainant by taking consideration of documents produced which clearly shows that OP has committed deficiency of service, incurring unwarranted expenses, physical and mental pain and loss of money.

(b) Allow the complaint by prosecuting the OP for deficiency of service.

(c) Direct the OP to allot an alternative site in the same layout for the same measurement.

(d) Direct the OP to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages, loss of money, for physical and mental pain.

(e) Pass any such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-

Her father S.Natarajan was the member of OP society and site No.1337 was allotted to him.  The OP has execute registered sale deed dated 06.05.2003 in favour of S.Natarajan in respect of site No.1337 and issued a possession certificate on 19.04.2003. 

3. The OP has also issued no objection certificate dated 16.11.2004.  The father of complainant gifted this site to the complainant under registered gift deed dated 17.04.2006.  The complainant had sought assistance of the OP for identification and fixation of the boundaries of site No.1337.  However, the OP failed to need her request.  Later on complainant came to know that the site No.1337 allotted to her father was earmarked for civic amenities.  Therefore, she issued a legal notice dated 01.06.2009 and called upon the OP to provide alternative site and OP promised to allot alternative site after disposal of Writ Petition No.7947/2009.  The OP failed to provide alternative site, there is deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Hence, this complaint.

4. After receipt of notice, the OP appears and files version.  The site No.1337 was allotted to father of the complainant.  BDA has granted only 49.99% of land for residential sites.  But, OP had requested the BDA to enhance the area for residential purpose to the extent of 55%.  The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka disposed the Writ Petition No.7947/2009 directing the BDA to release the land in favour of the OP.  OP is ready to provide site after completion of due process under law.  There is no deficiency of service, the delay was caused due to judicial interference and error committed by BDA and Corporation. The OP requests to dismiss the complaint.

5. The complainant files her affidavit evidence and relies on certain documents.  The affidavit evidence of President of OP has been filed affidavit evidence.

6. Even though no oral arguments is advanced on behalf of both the parties.  We perused the written arguments submitted by the complainant and OP.  ON 09.01.2020, the OP has filed a memo through its counsel that OP is ready to allot an alternative site in favour of the complainant within three months.

7. The following points arise for our consideration are:-

1.  Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

5. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  Affirmative in part.

      Point No.2: Affirmative in part.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

8. Point Nos.1 and 2:  At the first instance, we would like to refer the admitted facts.  Almost all the facts are not in dispute.  Even though the OP issued possession certificate dated 19.04.2003 in favour of S.Natarajan father of the complainant in respect of site bearing No.1337 measuring 30 x 50 ft. with boundaries.  The coy of the registered sale deed dated 06.05.2003 is not in dispute.  The OP sold site No.1337 with boundaries to the father of the complainant for sale consideration of Rs.97,050/-.  Later on OP has issued No objection certificate dated 16.11.2004 in favour of S.Natarajan father of the complainant.
9. The complainant in support of her contention that her father gifted this site to her under registered gift deed dated 17.04.2006 has been proved through copy of the gift deed.  It indicates that the site NO.1337 measuring 30 x 50 ft. with boundaries, the father of the complainant by issuing notice dated 01.06.2009 called upon the OP to produce resolution and approved layout plan issued by BDA.  Later on by issuing legal notice dated 13.03.2013 the complainant called upon the OP to provide alternative site.
10. Even though, the complainant and OP have referred W.P.No.7947/09, but for the reasons best known to them they have not furnished copy of order in W.P.No.7947/09. The OP has admitted in para No.7 of the version as well as para 7 of the affidavit evidence that in view of the direction in W.P.No.7497/09 filed by the OP, the BDA has to release the land in favourt of the OP and OP is ready to provide site after completion of due process under law.  On 09.01.2020 a memo came to be filed on behalf of OP that OP is ready to allot alternative site.  It means, there was genuine dispute between the complainant and OP about identification and fixation of the boundaries of the site.  Except to affidavit evidence of the President, the OP has not produced any documents to show it has taken further steps to allot alternative site.  Even after filing version and memo dated 09.01.2020, the OP has not come forward to allot alternative site.  Non-allotment of alternative site by the OP amounts to deficiency of service.
11. It is relevant to note that already there are two registered documents, one in favour of the father of the complainant and another in favour of the complainant in respect of site No.1337.  The complainant has not whispered what actions she would take about two registered deeds.  Even though, the OP committed default in non-allotment of alternative site, the complainant is also equally responsible for non-executing the re-conveyance deed in favour of the OP.  It has been proved that the OP has failed to provide alternative site to the complainant.  Under such circumstances, the complainant is entitled to relief for allotment of alternative site.  The complainant claims Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from the OP.  This quantum is exorbitant. Under such circumstances, it is proper to direct to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.
12. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, the OP is liable to allot alternative site measuring 30 x 50 ft. to the complainant and complainant is liable to execute re-conveyance deed in respect of site No.1337 measuring 30 x 50 ft.  The complainant has engaged service of advocate. The OP is also liable to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The complaint is pending since 2013, therefore cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.10,000/-.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following  

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP is directed to allot alternative site measuring 30 x 50 ft. in favour of the complainant and complainant shall execute registered re-conveyance deed in respect of site No.1337 measuring 30 x 50 ft. in favour of the OP.
3. The OP shall pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
4. Both parties are directed to comply these directions within three months from this date.
5. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 1^st day of February, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant are as follows