State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A.R.Ramesh vs The Commissioner, Muda on 14 December, 2011
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 14TH OF DECEMBER 2011 PRESENT HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SRI. A.M. BENNUR : MEMBER SMT. RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Appeal No. 5060/2010 A.R.Ramesh S/o. A.Rangappa Gowda aged about 50 years, R/at No.29, 12th Cross, I Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038. (By Sri. T.V.Balakrishna) V/s Appellant Complainant before the DF The Commissioner Mysore Urban Development Authority Mysore. (By Shri/Smt T.P.Viveka nanda) Repondent OP before the DF O R D E R
SRI. A.M. BENNUR, MEMBER This appeal is filed under section 15 of the CP Act, 1986 by the Complainant in Complaint No. 595/2010 on the file of DCF Mysore being aggrieved with the order dated 19.11.2010.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2.
Complainant being Ex-serviceman applied for the site measuring 40X60 before OP on 06.03.1991 with an intention to settle at Mysore. Op accepted his membership and allotted him site bearing No. 7032/C. At the time of applying for the site Complainant has paid Rs. 5000/-. He was ready and willing to pay remaining total cost of the said site. Complainant was frequently transferred from one place to another place. He intimated the OP about his correct address on 02.06.1999. Inspite of the same OP did not sent him any intimation either with regard to formation and allotment of site or demand raised towards sital value. After his retirement when he approached Op in year 2008 to his utter shock and surprise he came to know that his allotment was cancelled in the year 2005 and the said site was allotted to some third party. No fault lies with the Complainant. Still he is deprived of the said site. It is all because of carelessness and negligence on the part of OP. When his repeated requests and demands made to OP to allot him site went in vain he felt deficiency of service and accordingly, filed complaint.
3. On appearance OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the Complainant in toto. According to OP they did intimate the Complainant with regard to allotment of site on 29.08.2000. He was asked to pay the remaining cost of the site on or before 31.01.2005. There was no response, after waiting for 5 months OP allotted the said site to third party on 30.05.2005. Complainant has slept over his right, right from 1999. After 1999 Complainant contacted the Op only in the year 2008. Delay is not explained. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merit. Among these grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Then the litigating parties lead their evidence and after hearing the arguments, DF was pleased to dismiss the said complaint vide order dated 19.11.2010. Being aggrieved by the same, now the Complainant has come up with this appeal on the following grounds;
That the DF has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper perspective manner. The conclusion arrived at, inferences drawn, findings recorded, reasons assigned are opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. There is a proof that Complainant intimated the OP about the change of address by letter dated 15.06.1999 which OP acknowledged. So instead of sending allotment letter and demand with regard to payment of the sital value to the correct address of the Complainant they sent it to the old address wherein the appellant is not residing. Though all these facts are proved and established some how DF failed to take note of them and erroneously held that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. If the said order is not set aside it is the appellant who will be put to greater hardship and prejudice. Among these grounds appellant / Complainant prayed for allowing the appeal.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this appeal are as under:
1.
Whether the impugned order under appeal is unjust and improper?
2. If so, whether it calls for interference from this commission?
3. To what order?
7. We have gone through the pleadings of parties, both oral and documentary evidence, impugned order under appeal, grounds urged in the appeal memo and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the foregoing paragraphs, our finding on Point No.1 is in negative, Point No. 2 is in negative and Point No.3 as per final order.
REASONS
8. At the outset it is not at dispute that Complainant opted to purchase a site measuring 40X60 in the layout floated by the OP and become a member. Op accepted the initial payment of Rs. 5,000/- and allotted him a site No. 7023/C. Complainant is expected to pay remaining sital value within a reasonable time. Now the grievance of the Complainant is that though he applied for the site in the year 1991, Op has not allotted him the site and register the same in his favour. As he is in armed service he used to get transfer every now and then. That is why he addressed letter to the OP intimating his correct address vide letter dated 15.06.1999 which OP acknowledged. But thereafter he did not receive any communication from OP.
9. On the reading of the said letter actually it is not addressed to the OP. But it is addressed to the Chairman of the MUDA. Whether the said Chairman in turn intimated the Op about the change of address is not known. The other grievance of the Complainant is that OP has sent a letter demanding the cost of the site to his old address. As admitted by him he is in army. Even if OP has sent communication or letter in his name to his old address the concerned army officers or the office in all fairness would have transmitted the said letter to the correct address of the Complainant. It is not done. So on that ground also the contention of the Complainant rather cannot be believed.
10. OP has further contended that in the year 2000 they allotted the site and intimated the Complainant to deposit the remaining value by causing notice on or before 31.01.2005. There is a breathing time of 5 months to deposit the sital value. It is not done. OP waited for 5 months. Then allotted the said site to the other eligible member on 30.05.2005. So no fault could be found with the OP.
11. Of course, what is the effort Complainant has made from 1999 to 2008 in ascertaining whether a site is allotted to him, whether OP is ready to execute the sale deed on receipt of consideration is not known.
After his retirement as admitted by him he settled in Bangalore. It is not difficult for the Complainant to go to Mysore and ascertain what happened to his site. No efforts are made between 1999 to 2008. He agitated his right only in the year 2008. During this period much water has flown. The cancellation of the site if any by the Op is because of carelessness and negligence attitude of the Complainant. When Complainant is at fault he cannot allege deficiency of service.
12. The DF has thoroughly considered each and every aspect of the matter in a proper perspective manner and rightly come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. That conclusion appears to be judicious. On the other hand the appellant has failed to establish before this commission that the impugned order is erroneous, suffers from illegality and unsustainable in law and it suffers from error apparent on the face of record requiring our interference. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Appeal appears to be devoid of merit. Accordingly, we answer Point No. 1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER CV*