CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.331/10
Wednesday the 3rd day of August, 2011
Petitioner : Sosamma Jacob,
Moolayil House,
Kooroppada PO, Kottayam.
(Adv.K.Kuruvila John)
Vs.
Opposite party : Secretary,
Kooroppada Grama Panchayat,
Kottayam.
(Adv.V.K.Sathyavan Nair)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
The case of the petitioner, filed on 28/12/10, is as follows:-
Petitioner purchased 2 Are.46Sq.mtr properties. After purchase said property is mutated in the name of the petitioner. Petitioner applied to the opposite party for the approval of a building plan in the purchased property by remitting sufficient fees in the office of opposite party. According to the petitioner building permit was issued to the petitioner by the opposite party. Petitioner done the entire construction of the building strictly according to the approved plan. On 11/2/10 opposite party issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the property on which the permit was given is the proposed land to be acquired for the construction of bye pass road. According to the petitioner said property will not included in the notification of the bye pass road. On 1/3/10 petitioner enquired in the office of the Revenue department and the PWD department with regard to the proposed acquisition of the petitioner’s land. On enquiry petitioner known that there is no such proposal. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party in not giving building number to petitioner’s building constructed in accordance with the approved plan amounts to deficiency in service. So he prays for a direction to the opposite party to issue building number to the petitioner’s newly constructed building. Petitioner claims Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party this petition is not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. ‘Dispute’ in question is not a consumer dispute. Notice was issued to the petitioner as per the instruction of PWD that petitioner’s proposed building site is giving to be acquired for bye pass road. Petitioner’s grievance was redressed in the Town Planning Adalath. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. Further more now there is no instruction from the PWD even after notice was issued by the opposite party. According to opposite parties they are ready to issue new building number to the newly constructed building of the petitioner. Opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on their part of the opposite party?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed petitioner and Exts.A1 to A16 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No.1
Petitioner alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, Grama Panchayat in not issuing building number to a newly constructed building of the petitioner. According to the opposite party since the PWD had given instruction to the opposite party with regard to the proposed acquisition of petitioner’s land for the bye pass road. Opposite party issued stop memo to the petitioner for further construction of the building. Petitioner in order to prove the title and possession of the property produced copy of the title deed, copy of the basic tax receipt and copy of possession certificate. Said documents were marked as Ext A1 to A3. From Ext.A1 to A3 it can bee seen that petitioner is the owner and possessor of 2 Ares. 46 sq.m of property in Re-survey
316/1-2. Copy of building permit given by the opposite party to the petitioner is produced and the same is marked as Ext.A8. Ext.A8 permit is given on conditions that the construction will be strictly in accordance with the approved plan. Opposite party has no case that petitioner violated any of the conditions of the permit. Ext.A9 is the copy of stop memo given by the opposite party to the petitioner with regard to the proposed acquisition of the property for a bye pass road. Nothing has produced on record to prove that the property of the petitioner is required for the construction of bye pass road. In paragraph six of the version opposite party admitted that due to the lack of any new instructions from the PWD opposite party is now ready to give building number to the newly constructed building of the petitioner. In our view act of opposite party is not issuing building number to a newly constructed building without any valid reason amounts to deficiency in service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the admission of opposite party petition is allowed.
In the result opposite party is ordered to issue building number to the petitioner in accordance with the law. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of a copy of the order. If the order is not complied as directed petitioner is entitled for Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 3rd day of August, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents produced by the petitioner.
Ext.A1-Copy of the sale deed
Ext.A2-Copy of the basic tax receipt
Ext.A3-Copy of possession certificate
Ext.A4-Copy of receipt dtd 18/11/09
Ext.A5-Copy of receipt dtd 1/12/09
Ext.A6-Copy of receipt dtd 5/12/09
Ext.A7-Copy of building plan
Ext.A8-Copy of the building permit dtd 8/12/09
Ext.A9-Copy of the notice dtd 11/2/10
Ext.A10-Copy of site plan
Ext.A11-Copy of application submitted by the petitioner to the panchayat dtd 25/2/10
Ext.A12-Copy of the notice dtd 1/3/10 issued by the panchayat to the petitioner
Ext.A13-Copy of receipt dtd 19/7/10
Ext.14-copy of lawyer’s notice
Ext.A15-postal receipt
Ext.A16-postal AD card
