Karnataka

Bidar

CC/30/2015

Rajkumar Agraval S/o Late Rghulalji Agraval - Complainant(s)

Versus

city municipal commissioner Bidar - Opp.Party(s)

P M DESHPANDE

16 Jul 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                         C.C.No. 30/2015

                                                                                              Date of filing: 10/04/2015

                                                                                         Date of disposal : 16/07/2016.

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                         (2) Shri. Shankrappa  (Halipurgi),

                                                                      B.A., LL.B.

                                                                                  Member.

                               

COMPLAINANT:              Rajkumar Agraval, s/o Raghulalji Agraval

                                          Age: Major, Occ: Self employment,

                                       R/o H.no.6-3-45, Chandra Nivas, Jawahar Bazar,     

                                       Bidar.

 

 

                                      (By Shri. Deshpande P.M., Advocate)

 

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

 

OPPONENT/S   :-             The Municipal Commissioner,

                                          City Municipal Council, Bidar.

 

                                      ( By Shri. Vilas Rao M.More,Advocate )

                                                                                                                                                 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

     This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act. Alleging deficiency of service, unfair trade practices and unscrupulous exploitation against the O.P., which is a quasi Government organ.

2.             As per the complaint, the O.P. had issued tender notification no.BMC/Licence/1/207-08,dt.05-04-2007, calling for applications from

interested persons for allotment of shops in the municipal complex at old service stand, Bidar on lease basis.  The complainant interested to have such a shop to conduct business for day to day living had applied for the same and was allotted shop no.222 in the complex.  Consequentially, at the asking of the O.P, the complainant deposited the required amount of Rs. 1,03,180/- against validly executed receipts, but the O.P. did not handover the possession of the allotted  shop.  A legal notice dt.20-05-2014 issued to the O.P. was of no consequence and hence the complainant is before us.

3.           It appears from the order sheet, the O.P. had put up appearance on 06-06-2015 and thereafter till 20-08-2015, there was no representation nor the versions were filed and hence was recorded as nil.  On the same day, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got documents Ex.P.1 to P.6 marked.  Case was posted for O.Ps evidence to 22/09/2015.

4.    On 22-09-2015, the O.P. attempted to file versions seeking permission U/s. 151 C.P.C. which was allowed against a cost of Rs. 500/- as per submissions of complainant’s counsel.  Case was adjourned to 20-10-2015.  On 20-10-2015, the O.P’s counsel remained absent.  Cost was not paid, for which a further cost of Rs.500/- was imposed.

5.             On the next date of hearing i.e. 19-11-2015, the Advocate’s clerk appeared in the Court and prayed for time to remit the cost.  Last chance was given up to 22-12-2015.

6.          Finally, on  22-12-2015, the cost was paid and O.P’s counsel prayed time to file evidence affidavit, whence the case was adjourned to 05-01-2016.  On that date, still time was sought by the O.P., but in spite of consecutive adjournments till 19-02-2016, neither evidence affidavit nor written arguments were filed.

 7.           On 01-04-2016, the complainant’s side filed written arguments and a citation rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2014(4) CPR 563 in support of his case.  Last chance was given to the O.P. to argue his case on 15-04-2016 and still the O.P’s counsel remained absent on 15-04-2016, 18-05-2016 and also on 24-06-2016 and hence the case was posted for orders on today i.e. 16-07-2016.

8.             As stated above, there is no defence worth the name, excluding a pleading in the W.V. that, the complainant did not take possession of the shop and further the, the case was time barred.  There is not even a scrap of paper, evidencing the O.P. asking the complainant to take possession of the shop allotted.  There has been no counter arguments against the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, stated supra.

9.               We have also given our anxious considerations to Section 22 of the limitation Act.  Till the promise or assurance of a promissor not acted upon, the cause of action continues de-die-indiem.  Further, the legal notice by the complainant vide Ex.P.6 dt. 20-05-2014 having not been countered, the case is well  within time and despite the flimsy grounds urged by the O.P. the prayers of the complainant have to be allowed objectively in confirmation with the natural justice, holding that, the complainant fills into the position of a consumer of the O.P., a service provider as per the C.P. Act. and hence we pass the following: 

                                               

                                                           

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The O.P. is bound to return back a sum of Rs. 1,03,180/-with 18% p.a. as interest, the transaction being of a business character from the last date of payment i.e. 20-06-2007 (Ex.P.3) till the date of realisation.
3. The O.P. is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. Four weeks time is granted to comply this order.

                  Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                                           Sri. Jagannath Prasad                               

           Member                                                                              President

                                               

Documents exhibited by the parties

Complainant:

1. Ex.P.1- Notice of the O.P. allotting the shop no.222.
2. Ex.P.2- Counter foil of  application form.
3. Ex.P.3- Money receipt dt.20-06-2007.
4. Ex.P.4- Money receipt dt.04-06-2007.
5. Ex.P.5- Application of complainant dt. 30-10-2013.(acknowledged copy)
6. Ex.P.6 Acknowledged office copy of legal notice dt.20-05-2014.

 

Opponent:

 

• Nil -

 

             Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad                 

        Member                                                                  President