State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Karnataka Housing Board., vs Sri Mehaboobali Ahmed Sharief on 6 June, 2003
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DRSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALQRE, DATED : 5*" JUNE zoga PRESENT THE I-l0i\l'Bl..E MRJUSTICE TZJAYARAMA CHOUTA : PRESIDENT SMTRAMA ANANTH : MEMBER
APPEAL NO.143I02 The Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, T Bangalore -560 009. APPELLANT (by Sri.G.Raghavendra Rao, adv.) ..V-3..
Sriivlehaboobali Ahmed Sharief, irani Bungalow Quarters, Govt. College Road, Hassan. ....RE$PONDENT m¢-»--;-u JUSTlC§ 'i'.JAYARAMA CHOUTA, PRESIDENT 'l. V This appeal has been preferred by OP i.e., KHB against tho order of the DF, Ha-ssan dt.25.1.2002 in C.No.HDF:CCiM:44:2001 directing to pay a sum of Rsfi ,750!- within a period of one month from the date of the order failing which the said amount to fetch interest at 18% p.a. and awardécigoompensation of Rs.'l,000l- with a further direction to pay the said amount within one month failing which the said amount to fetch interest at 18% pa. iii! the date of payment.
2. The case of the complainant before the DF was that he was allotted as site in Satyamangala Extn., Hassan and he paid a sum of Rs.7'00Gl- by way of DU. Since he had applied for a site measuring 9 mtr.
(P,
- 2 -
X 15 mtrhe had been ailotted with a site measuring 15.5 x 15 mtr. Since he was not in a position to pay the amount fixed by the Board he requested for refund of the amount paid by him. The Board cancelled the ailotment made in his favour and refunded only a sum of Rs.5,250/- deducting 1/4"' of the sale price. The complainant after issuing legal notice for which DP did not respond filed the present complaint.
3. The DF on the basis of the materials produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the Board was not justified in allotting biggersite for which the complainant was not in a position to pay the cost when he has requested for a smaller site for which he has paid a sum of Rs.7,000l-- and refusal to pay the balance amount, retained by the Board amounted to deficiency of service and accordingly passed the impugned order.
4. in this appeal we heard the LA Mr.G.Raghavendra Rec on behalf of the appnt. Though notice was served on the respdt. he did not appear before this Commission. The LA Mr.Raghavendra Rao submitted before us that the DP' was not right in ordering to refund the amount which was deducted by the Board on account of cancellation of the allotment at the instance of the complainant. He submitted that the Board was not responsible for canceliation of the allotment and hence the DF ought not to have directed to pay the 'll-4"' amount deducted by the Board. His next submission was met the DF was not justified in awarding compensation as well as interest to the complainant. We have been taken through the order of the DF. The complainant had applied for a site meaeuring 9 mtr. X 15 mtr. by paying a sum of Rs.?,000/--. But the Board had allotted a bigger cite demanding more money. Since the complainant was not in a 4L...
G 3 ..
position to pay such an amount he sought for refund of the amount deposited by him. The Board instead of refunding the entire amount deducted 1/4"' of sale price and paid the balance amount: The DF has rightly held that the act of the Board amounted to deficiency of service and accordingly directed to refund the balance amount. We see no illegality committed by the DF in ordering refund of the said amount. The DF has awarded compensation on the said amount. However the DF has granted one month time to pay the said amount failing which to pay interest on the said amount at 18% p.a. That being so, the DF was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the complainants Hence we see no merit in this appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.
'T\"\,\/\,\:xWJ§g;»3 PResii3E'N'"iW MEli:1BER Y Hi» 9