State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.J. Channabasappa vs The Commissioner, Muda on 5 July, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/2079/2017 ( Date of Filing : 16 Oct 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 01/09/2017 in Case No. CC/1372/2016 of District Mysore) 1. S.J. Channabasappa aged about 71years, S/o late Javarappa, No.3852, 1st Cross, Gandhinagara, Kanakapura, Near Model House, Mysuru-570007. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Commissioner, MUDA J.L.B. Road, Mysuru-570 001. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 05 Jul 2023 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing: 16.10.2017 Date of disposal: 05.07.2023 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 05.07.2023 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs. DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO. 2079/2017 S.J. Channabasappa, Aged About 71 Years, S/o. Late javarappa, No.3852, 1st Cross, Gandhinagara, Karunapura, Near Model House, Mysuru-570 007. (Advocate - Sri.A. Abhishek) .....Appellant/s. V/s The Commissioner, MUDA, J.L.B. Road, Mysuru-570001. (Advocate - Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda) .....Respondent/s. ORDER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT
01. The complainant has filed this Appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order dated: 01.09.2017 passed in C.C. No.1372/2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysuru.
02. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Appellant.
03. The District Commission after enquiring into the matter had dismissed the consumer complaint No.1372/2016 on 01.09.2017.
04. Aggrieved by this order, complainant has filed this Appeal.
05. Perused the impugned order and the grounds urged in the Appeal. The brief facts of the Appeal is that, as per the application caused by the Respondent - MUDA the appellant had applied for a site measuring 15 x 24 Mtrs under SCH Caste category at Vijayanagara 4th Stage, 2nd Phase, Mysuru. On 08.03.1999 site bearing No.1988 was allotted vide allotment letter dated: 08.03.1999 and the cost was fixed at Rs.2,75,000/-. After confirmation of allotment the appellant made payment of Rs.1,39,018/- as per the demand made by the Respondent and the same was also acknowledged by them. In the meantime the appellant ascertained that, site No.1988 which was allotted to the Appellant was already allotted to one Mr. Nooruddin on 13.08.1994 and the respondent had already issued possession certificate, Niveshana Khatha Pathra and Niveshana Kandaya Pathra and the Respondent had also executed Lease cum Sale agreement on 30.04.1998 in favour of Mr. Nooruddin. Thereafter the Appellant approached the Respondent on several occasions seeking either to convey the allotted site or to allot an alternative site with same measurement, but the Respondent has failed to discharge their obligations. Hence Appellant after issuance of legal notice to the Respondent had filed consumer complaint No.1372/2016 before the Mysuru District Commission.
06. The grounds urged by the Appellant is that, the learned Forum has failed to consider the fact that, the respondent being in the custody of Rs.1,39,018/- which was paid by the Appellant without any delay or default and the Respondent played unfair trade practice by allotting the said site to a third person for over a decade ago and the learned Forum had erroneously come to the conclusion that, there is an unexplained delay of 18 years and the complaint is barred by limitation on the basis of date of allotment. The appellant had issued communication to the respondent for allotment of alternative site, but the District Forum without considering this fact had passed its order with a direction to refund a sum of Rs.1,39,018/- with interest at 15% per annum which resulted to miscarriage of justice.
07. Further the Learned Counsel for Appellant has also relayed decision reported in 2010(1) Mh.L.J. 232 held between Ramchandra Krushnarao Pitale Vs. Scientific Cooperative Housing Society and another decision reported in 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 772 held between M/s. Druv (ATT) Coop. Housing Society Limited Vs. M/s Druv Constructions. On perusal of the above decisions it appears that, it would aptly apply to the case on hand. Here in the case on hand as the total amount of Rs.1,39,018/- paid by the Appellant as and when demanded by the Respondent in respect of allotment of site was still in the custody of the Respondent and as the Respondent had failed to discharge their obligations as promised by them in our view there is a continuous cause of action. Hence the Appeal is allowed and consequently the District Commission order passed in CC No.1372/2016, dated: 01.09.2017 is set aside and the direction given by the District Commission with regard to refund of Rs.1,39,018/- to the complainant/appellant along with interest at 15% per annum from 05.08.2016 till realization is unaltered. Further due to the act of the Respondent the appellant/complainant had suffered lot of mental agony and also made him to run from pillar to post by filing appeal before this Commission. Hence the appellant/complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- from the Respondent. Compliance of this order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.
08. Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.
LADY MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT KNMP* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER