Karnataka

Bidar

CC/1/2017

Sunilkumar S/o Mohanrao Shinde - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Municipal Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.Deshpande

29 Jul 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 01/2017

 

                                                                                                  Date of filing : 03/01/2017

 

                                                                                              Date of disposal : 29/07/2017

 

P R E S E N T:-                    (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                       (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:      Sunilkumar S/o Mohanrao Shinde,                          

                                    Age: 36 years,  Occ: Reporter,

                                       R/o H.No.LIG 253, Naubad,

                                    KHB colony Bidar.

                                      

              

 

 

                                    (By Shri. P.M.Deshpand, Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-      1.     The Muncipal commissioner,

                                            City Muncipal Council, Bidar.

 

  

                                    2.     The deputy commissioner, Bidar.

 

 

                                    3.     The director of Municipal Administration, 

                                          Bangalore.

 

                                      

 

 

 

                                   (O.P.No.1 and 2 By ShriMadanrao K. Biradar, Adv)

                                                  (O.P.No.2 and 3- Exparte)

 

 

                                               

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

1.         The complainant is before this Forum alleging deficiency of service in the part oftheO.Ps.1 to 3, by filing a complaint U/s.12 of the C.P. Act., 1986.

 

 

2.      The sum total of the case of the complainant is as hereunder:

            The complainant is a permanent resident of KHB colony, Naubad Bidar which is under the limits of the Bidar C.M.C. when the complainant purchased the house bearing No.LIG 253 from the Karnataka Housing Board through registered sale deed, it was assured and promised by the Karnataka Housing board that there will be electricity facilities, water facilities, Road facilities, Drainage, Garden and all such other facilities as required to lead the life, but till today from 2010, no any such facilities are provided by the O.Ps.  Prior to 2010, all facilities were there in the locality, but after 2010 till this date, no such facilities are available.  Now the said area comes under the limits of O.Ps.  The complainant is very poor, helpless, from weaker section community and is a handicapped person and as such he is unable to arrange such required facilities out of his meagre income.  The complainant several times had approached the O.Ps., and requested to provide such above all facilities, but the same went in vain.  On 25.12.2016, again the complainant approached and requested for the same , but they have flatly refused, which is the date on which the cause of action arose to the complainant and the next date of cause of action arose on 30.12.2016.  The complainant is purchasing the drinking water per day for Rs.500/- from private persons and such other loss, damage is caused to the complainant.  The complainant has paid property tax up to date and water tax.  Hence, the complaint for claiming facilities in the locality etc.

 

3.                The opponent entering into defence on receipt of Court notice, the O.P.No.1 has filed its version.  O.P.No.2 and 3 did not appear, hence, they have been placed exparte.  O.P.No.1 contended in its version that, the assurance for providing road, drainage given by the Karnataka Housing Board to the complainant, is not known.  The said housing board area is in the limit of O.P.No.1, but this O.P. does not know who had provided all the facilities prior to 2010.  There is no cause of action to file the complaint by the complainant.  The dates shown by the complainant  i.e., 25.12.2016 is not correct since the complainant has not approached the O.P. office for providing facilities.  The complainant has filed application on 30.12.2016 as per endorsement of this office.  The present complaint is filed on 03.01.2017 just within 02 days and the O.P.No.1 was not allowed to hear the grievance of the complainant.  The O.P.No.1 is a human being and not a machine.  It is the bounden duty of the complainant to wait for some more days by giving the opportunity to look into the matter, but the clever complainant in order to claim compensation from O.P.No.1 has filed this bogus and fictitious complaint.  The complainant has filed the complaint hurriedly, which is premature one.  So the O.P.No.1 requests the court to dismiss this complaint by imposing compensatory cost of Rs.50,000/- for unnecessary putting the O.P.No.1 in the litigation.  The housing scheme introduced by the Karnataka Housing Board and assured to their  members to provide the facilities for which they said authority has collected huge amount while sale of the constructed house to their members.  Therefore, the Karnataka Housing Board is necessary party to this case.  If the complainant has paid tap connection charges, then it is his bounden duty to file the complaint before the O.P.No.1 by giving sufficient opportunity, before filing the present case before this court.  Hence, O.P.No.1 prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

 

 

4.             The complainant has filed documents, detailed at the end of this order, so also the complainant has filed evidence affidavit justifying his side.  On the other hand, the contesting O.P. has not filed documents, but has filed evidence affidavit justifying his side.  Both the complainant and O.P.filed their written arguments respectively.

 

5.            Considering the contention of the complainant, the following points arise for our considerations.

 

1. Whether the complainant has proved that  there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
2. What order?

 

 

 

6.           Our answers to the points detailed are as follows:-

 

1. In the affirmative.
2.  As per final orders owing to the following:-

 

 

:: REASONS ::

 

7. Point No.1:-   The present complaint even though filed by a single individual, that  too a physically handicapped person, appears to be for the benefit of a large section of the society living in Naubad  K.H.B. colony, Bidar city.  The pathetic infrastructure of which is evident from a News paper Cutting produced by the complainant (not exhibited being a photocopy only).  The fact but remains, the Karnataka Housing Board in the past had developed the layout, allotted house sites and houses to different eligible persons, out of which, the complainant was one.  He was allotted the house bearing No.LIG-253.  The necessary sale deed was executed vide Ex.P.3 and possession was handed over to him vide Ex.P.4.  Both the documents have their origin and genesis to the year 2005 as per the Gregorian calendar.  As is born out of records, in the year 2010, the layout was handed over by the K.H.B. and taken over by the C.M.C. vide Ex.P.12.  Vide this document the onward maintenance of public utilities has been voluntarily assumed by the C.M.C., the O.P.No.1.  As a corollary, vide Ex.P.5 date: 02.09.2014 the C.M.C. has recorded the Khatha of the property in the name of the complainant, by charging a registration fees of Rs.9,920/-, reaffirmed by Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8.  Thereafter, the C.M.C. Bidar has received taxes vide Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9.  The complainant has obtained electrical connection to his house as is depicted in Ex.P.10 (electricity bill), substantiating the fact of his inhabitation in the house allotted.  Vide Ex.P.11, the complainant had brought the attention of the C.M.C. on date: 29.12.2016 on the aspect of non-supply of water which was duly acknowledged by the C.M.C. but did not act for which the complainant is before this forum.

 

8.          The sole participating contestant in the case, the O.P.No.1 concedes gracefully about the K.H.B area in its’ limits.  It further claims, the complainant albeit had filed a complaint with it, has opted to file the present complaint within two days and no fair opportunity was given to the C.M.C. to consider the facts.  It is stated, the misconceived complaint is filed to make an undue gain in the shape of compensation.  The submission of O.P.No.1 indirectly means, was it given a fair opportunity and time, it would have positively considered its’ responsibility (s) of providing public amenities as is required in a housing layout.  A fair enough submission according to our analysis and kudos to O.P.No.1 for the same.

 

9.         Well, now it is the million dollar question to be put, had the opponents after receiving the representation of the complaint on 29.12.2016 vide Ex.P.11 taken any effort to ameliorate the difficulties of the complainant and scores of other similar inhabitants of the layout till the end of duly 2017?  The answer is big no.  Visible is, creation of legal labyrinth resorting to jugglery of words and phrases in the part of O.P.No.1 and stoic silence in the part of the other two.

 

10.       The citizens of the country get compelled to pay taxes to the Municipal and state authorities in anticipation of being provided civic and public utilities in a fair manner within a reasonable time.  Paying for services, they deserve the same and hence are consumers of the Municipal authorities.  The Municipality after assuming the charges in the year 2010 is sitting lame duck which is a manifestation of lack of moral and natural ethics and hence we answer this point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-

           

:: ORDER ::

 

   

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opponents are jointly and severally directed to take up the work of providing  public/civic amenities in the area earmarked as K.H.B. colony in Naubad, Bidar District and complete the same within a period of 150 days of passing this order.
3. The complainant voluntarily acquiring a house in a quasi under developed area, knowing fully the hazards, we don’t propose to pass any order as to compensation or costs.
4. However, it is made clear, if the completion of civic/public amenities is not completed within the stipulated time, the O.P. authorities would be saddled with the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of taking over the layout till the date of realisation.
5. Office is directed to provide/transmit free copies to the     

       litigants.

6. A copy of the order be transmitted to the Asst. Director, publicity and information, Govt. of Karnataka, near Railway Station Bidar for vide publicity in electronic and print media ensuring public awareness.  This part of the order is a mandate and any deviation would entail a criminal prosecution.

 

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 29^th day of July-2017)

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                          

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Attested copy of certificate for persons with disabilities.
2. Ex.P.2- Attested copy of Election Card.
3. Ex.P.3- Attested copy of Absolute sale deed.
4. Ex.P.4- Attested copy of possession Memo.
5. Ex.P.5- Attested copy of certificate concerning transfer of title.
6. Ex.P.6- Attested copy of Khatha.
7. Ex.P.7- Attested copy of S.A.S. scheme for tax payment (money    

              receipt).

8. Ex.P.8- Attested copy of details of property tax issued by  

              O.P.No.1.

9. Ex.P.9- Copy of tax paid receipt.
10. Ex.P.10- Electricity consumption bill (original).
11. Ex.P.11-Acknowledged copy of complainants’ representation

                date: 29.12.2016.

 

12. Ex.P.12- Copy of acknowledgment taking over the layout by  

               C.M.C. date: 04.06.2010 with enclosure.

      13. Ex.P.13- Attested copy of paper publication.

 

 Document produced by the Opponent.

 

    -Nil-

 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                   President.