THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
APPEAL NO.564/2017
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
Mysore Urban Development
Authority, JLB Road.
Mysuru ...Appellant/s
Represented by its Commissioner
(By Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda, Advocate)
-Versus-
Smt.Vishalakshmi.A.M,
W/o late A.G.Ravindra,
Nalkeri village and post,
South Coorg, Kodagu District
(By Sri.A.G.Thimmaiah, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.64/2014 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Mysuru which directed this appellant to allot a site in favour of complainant under the ex-serviceman quota and submits that the complainant applied for a site measuring 40X60sq.ft. on 17-4-1999 and deposited an amount of Rs.4,350/- under ex-serviceman quota, but the Opposite Party has not allotted the site in favour of complainant, in spite of repeated requests and explanation sought for non allotment of the site to the complainant. Subsequently she issued a legal notice called upon the Opposite Party to allot the site, but this appellant had not replied to the legal notice. Subsequently the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and direction sought for allotment of the site under the ex-serviceman quota.
2. After trial the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to allot the site under the ex-serviceman quota on priority by receiving the sale consideration amount in the due course. In fact, this appellant is not under the obligation to allot the site to the complainant under the ex-serviceman quota. The District Commission without considering the norms of the appellant had directed to allot the site measuring 40X60sq.ft. Hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
3. Heard from both sides.
4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal, we noticed that the District Commission only provided an option to allot a site in favour of complainant on priority as per the law whenever the layout is developed. There is no any specific direction given to the appellant to allot 40X60sq.ft site in particular layout by receiving the consideration amount from the complainant. When there is no specific direction given and when only on priority was provided, the appellant may provides site to the complainant upon the application received by the complainant, if all the required conditions and terms fulfilled. As such, we do not find any merits in the appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed as no merits and we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member Judicial Member
Jrk/-
