D.O.F:25/4/12
D.o.O:30/6/2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO122/12
Dated this, the 30th day of June 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
P.Ashokan,S/o M.P.Balan,
Po.Kodakkad, Kasaragod Dt. : Complainant
(in person)
The Managing Director,
Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation,: Opposite party
KINFRA HOUSE, 31/2312, Sasthamangalam,
Trivandrum-695010.
(Adv.Vittala.M,Kasaragod)
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
Facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
That the complainant is conducting a small scale industry by name Coorg Ecotechs in a rented building at Kunhippara of Kodakkad village Kasaragod district. In order to expand his industry he intended to register an industrial plot developed by KINFRA, the opposite party in the KINFRA small Industries park at Seethangoli, Kasaragod and he sent his application on 2/6/2010 in a prescribed form along with a demand draft of Rs.5000/ being the registration fee for the allotment of 10 cents of developed plot on lease for a period of eighty years and in the prospectus attached to the application form it was clearly mentioned that a lease premium per acre is 3.54 lakhs only apart from monthly service charges for common facilities and annual lease rent. The registration fee of Rs.5000/- was refundable if final allotment was not made and the complainant sent his application only on appreciating their conditions and on 21/7/2010 he received a letter of intimation from opposite party stating strange untenable and hostile terms and conditions and clause 5 of the said letter of intimation stated that the lease premium in the developed plot at Seethangoli was Rs.4,46,000/- per acre and that lease premium is revised he required to pay revised lease premium as and when it was communicated to him and it also clearly states that if those conditions where agreeable they could proceed further on allotment and in the terms of payment opposite party demanded the lease premium in two equal instalments within a period of 2 years with annual interest of 11.75% but in the prospectus attached to the application form did not mentioned all those things and further stated in the letter of intimation that the corporation reserved the right to reject the application of the complainant without assigning any reason. Then the complainant visited the office of KINFRA in order to discuss the matter with the officials and to see the location of the plot but nobody in the office ready to show the plot on that day. Subsequently he had seen the plot but the officials failed to show the plot suitable for him and the strange and hostile attitude of the opposite party the complainant decided not to submit the application and the same is intimated through registered letter to opposite party stating the reasons for not sending the application for allotment and request for refund of the registration fee of Rs.5000/- and the opposite party sent reply to the letter stating that the registration fee will be refunded if the application for land allotment is rejected by KINFRA and in the case of complainant the opposite party is not ready to refund the registration fee and hence this complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service against opposite party.
On receipt of notice from this Forum opposite party entered in appearance and filed their version. In the version the opposite party denied all the allegations made against them by the complainant and submitted that the complainant had obtained form A, the application for registration for allotment of 10cents of land for starting small scale industry on 26/10/2009 and filled up the above application on 2.6.2010 and as per the terms and conditions which prevailed on 2.6.2010 ,the rate of lease premium payable in respect of the developed land is Rs.4,46,000/- per acre and the applicant has to pay the revised lease premium and the contention of complainant that the lease premium agreed upon is only Rs.3.54 lakhs per acre is incorrect. The revised rate already came into force and the complainant has been directed to deposit the balance amount accordingly and inspite of the same the complainant did not act according to the rules and the opposite party further submitted that the opposite party was ready and willing to allot 10 cents of land to the complainant provided he pays the balance amount in accordance with the terms and conditions and further submitted that the complainant voluntarily withdrawn his application and in such case the applicants are not entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.5000/- being the cost of the application form and also the registration fee and if KINFRA rejects the application then only the amount will be refunded and it is further submitted that the opposite party is a statutory body constituted as per separate enactment and it is being administrated as per the said enactment and the lease premium will be fixed by the pricing committee on the basis of the government policy and Director of Industries and commerce is also one of the members of the said committee and only said decision is being implemented and hence the complainant can not challenge the same and hence there is no deficiency in service on the side of opposite party and the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
After considering the entire facts of the case the following issues raised for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party or not?
- If so what is the relief as costs and compensation?
Here the complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts,A1 to A10 marked. Complainant was cross examined by opposite parties counsel. Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence and Exts.B1 & B2 marked.
Issue No.1: The admitted case of the complainant is that he has obtained the application form on 26/10/09 and the same was submitted before opposite party for registration was on 2/6/2010 after a lapse of 9 months. According to opposite party at the time when the complainant obtained the application form the lease premium was Rs.3.54 lakh per acre and Rs.4.46 per lakhs is the revised premium at the time of submitting the application. According to opposite party being a statutory body opposite party is a part and parcel of government and everything would be implemented as per policy of the government. In order to prove their contention opposite party produced Ext.B2 a copy of the resolution by the pricing committee. Moreover opposite party is relying upon Ext.A6, letter of intimation issued by opposite party to complainant. In Ext.A6 clause 5 specifically shows the revised premium is Rs.4.46 lakhs per acre. Here we accept the contention of the opposite party that the opposite party has right to revise the lease premium every time since it is a statutory body it is governed by law. Considering all aspects and on perusal of Ext.B2 and A6, we are of the opinion that the lease premium revised by opposite party is not illegal
Then the question to be answered is whether the complaint is entitled to get refund of the registration fee? The terms and conditions mentioned in the intimation letter shows that if final allotment is not made the registration fee is refundable. Here the final allotment of plot is made to the complainant and he failed to deposit the earnest money within the prescribed time.
In Delhi Development Authority vs. Surender Singh 2013 III CPJ 343 the Hon’ble National Commission by its judgments observed that monthly stipulated instalments not deposited even after deferred dates and non payment resulted in cancellation of allotment and deficiency in service not proved and the complainant is not entitled for returned of registration fee.
In this case also the opposite party made final allotment to the complainant and the complainant voluntarily withdrawn his application since the price is raised. Therefore considering the entire evidence and arguments advanced by the parties and in view of the above cited decision we did not find that the opposite party acted in an illegal manner. Hence we dismiss the complaint with a finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party . No order as to cost.
Exts;
A1-&A2-copy of sales tax return
A3-copy of leaf let
A4-2/6/10 letter issued by PW1 to OP
A5-copy of application for registration
A6-21/7/10- letter of intimation
A7-email to OP
A8-30/5/11- letter to OP
A9-15/7/11- do-
A10-5/5/11- do-
B1-26/10/09- cash receipt
B2-copy of Ressolution of pricing committee minutes
PW1-P.Ashokan- complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
/forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
