CC No.961.2014

Filed on 03.06.2014

Disposed on 19.07.2016

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE19^thDAY OF JULY2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.961/2014

PRESENT:

Sri.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA

                                PRESIDENT

               Smt.L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                             MEMBER

                                              V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1.        This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 03.06.2014U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- cost to the complainant and such other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleged that he had applied for the fresh allotment of the GunjurApartment under the project name a Chance to Own Your Dream Home and paid Rs.2,25,000/-through Demand Draft as an initial deposit to Opposite Party.   The Opposite Party has called for the second notification for the above mentioned project in May 2012 and clearly mentioned that Apartments will be given on 1^st come 1^st served basis.  But the complainant did not received any updates on the mentioned notification neither through paper nor postal or mail communications.  To his utmost disappointment complainant was shocked to see the publishing for the third notification for the same project by Opposite Party on March 14^th 2013.  Since it was clearly mentioned in the second notification that the allotment of the apartments will be on first come first basis, but the same assurances were not being followed by Opposite Party.  The complainant request Opposite Party to provide him the valid reason of Opposite Party to publish the third notification and allocation of the apartments for the same project in spite of clearing the demands for the purchasers who had booked for the same under second notification.  The Opposite Party has taken a decision on its own to make a shortlist for 2^nd notification applicants and also to allocate 3^rd notification applicants aswell which is illegal.  The Opposite Party did not follow the right allotment procedure.   The main criteria for section are seniority with respect to the number of attempts made, age factor & category.  The complainant filed several complaints with Opposite Party but no positive response was received from them.  The entire episode has left him in a bitter taste and complainant is extremely disappointed with Opposite Party’s pathetic services.   The complainant has been facing lot of mental stress, agony and immense loss of time and money due to this incident and even after making several requests to Opposite Party authority’s officials no positive response has been received by him.   The complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party on April 28^th,2014.  There has been no communication of whatsoever between the complainant and Opposite Party since then the Opposite Party has refused to take initial step to resolve the issues.  Hence this complaint.  

3.      In response to the notice, the Opposite Party put their appearance through their counsel.  But failed to file his version and filed a Memo.  

4.      The Complainant hasfiled his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.Heard the arguments.  

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.      Our findings on the above points are:-

                   POINT (1):-Negative

                   POINT (2):-As per the final Order

REASONS

7.POINT NOs.1& 2:       It is the case of the complainant that he had applied for allotment of apartment under the project name a Chance to Own Your Dream Home and paid Rs.2,25,000/-.  The Opposite Party had get second Notification for the above mentioned project in May 2012 and clearly mentioned that Apartments will be given on 1^st come 1^st served basis.  But the complainant did not receive any updates on the mentioned Notification neither through paper nor postal or mail communications.  To his utmost disappointment complainant was shocked to see the publishing for the third Notification for the same project by Opposite Party on March 14^th 2013.  The complainant requested Opposite Party to provide any valid reason of the Opposite Party to publish the 3^rd Notification and allocation of the apartments for the same project in spite of clearing the demands for the purchasers who had booked for the same under second Notification.  The Opposite Party has taken a decision on its own to make a shortlist for 2^ndNotification applicants and also to allocate 3^rdNotification applicants as well which is illegal.  The Opposite Party did not follow the right allotment procedure.   The main criteria for section are seniority with respect to the number of attempts made, age factor & category.  The complainant filed several complaints with the Opposite Party but no positive response was received from them.  The complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party on April 28^th, 2014. There has been no communication of whatsoever between the complainant and Opposite Party since then the Opposite Party has refused to take initial step to resolve the issues.   In order to substantiate this fact, the complainant filed his affidavit in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced the application for allotment of the flat.  By looking into this document, the complainant Venkatesh B.T applied for allotment of apartment with Opposite Party on 12.05.2012 by paying an advance sum of Rs.2,25,000/- of Gunjur apartment and also produced the Notification issued by the Opposite Party dt.13.10.2011. By looking into this Notification, it reveals that the Opposite Party called the Application for allotment of flats constructed by them in ValagereHalli 2^ndPhase, HalageVaderahalli, Doddagubbi, Thippa Sandra Sy.No.27, Thippa Sandra Sy.No.10, Kaniminike, Gunjur, Sir M.V.Survey No.25 Ullala, Sir.M.V.Sy.No.52 Gidadakonehally, Doddabanahally, Alur, Kothanur, Doddakallasandra and in the said Notification, it clearly mentioned that the Opposite Party for allot of apartments on the basis of first come 1^st served basis and also produced acknowledgement issued by the Opposite Party.  As looking into this, it clearly reveals that the complainant had applied for apartment, his application number is 1706 and also he paid a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as advance on 12.05.2012.  This evidence of the complainant has been denied or disputed by the Opposite Party.   So to disbelieve the version of the complainant nothing on record, thereby, it is proper to accept the version of the complainant that the complainant applied for allotment of apartment in Gunjur Apartment on 12.05.2012 by paying an advance of Rs.2,25,000/-.

8. It is further case of the complainant that the Opposite Party has failed to allot the flat to the complainant in Gunjur Apartment and called for the 2^nd Notification in the above mentioned project in May 2012 and clearly mentioning them the apartment will be given on the basis of first come 1^st served basis.  The Opposite Party also failed to allot the flat to the complainant but call for 3^rdNotification for the same project on 14^th March 2013.   Even in that Notification, the allotment of the apartment will be given on the basis of first come 1^st served basis. TheOpposite Party had taken a decision on its own to make a shortlist for 2^nd notification applicants and also to allocate 3^rdNotification applicants, but failed to allot a flat to the complainant.To substantiate this fact, the complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and also produced the Notification.   As looking into the Notification filed by the complainant, the BDA i.e., Opposite Party calledtheapplication for allotment in Gunjur Apartment and other places and the last date of submission of the application is 30^th June 2013, but this document does not reveals that the said Notification is stated on 14.03.2013.  However, the Opposite Party was not allottedin Gunjur Apartment in the name of the complainant.  To substantiate this fact, the complainant produced the letter dt.21.04.2014.  This letter is addressed by the complainant to the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority.  In his letter, it is clearly mentioned that the complainant has applied for allotment of 3 BHK flat in Gunjur Apartment, his application number is 1706 and paid an advance of Rs.2,25,000/- through Demand Draft dt.12.05.2012, but he has not received any update from the Opposite Party.  Even though, in the said Notification it is mentioned that the allotment of apartment will be given on the basis of first come first served basis and he saw the publication for the 3^rdNotification same project on 14.03.2013 and also in his letter it clearly mentioned that the complainant had visited the office of the Opposite Party on several occasions and filed this complaint.  In spite of that, he has not received any proper response from the Opposite Party.  But this evidence of the complainant falsely files.   As looking into the Memo filed by the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party filed a Memo on 10.09.2014 itself.  In their Memo it clearly mentioned that the Opposite Party on 21.04.2014 made a communication of the complainant about the allotment of flat along with this Memo and also filed Letter dt.21.04.2014.  By looking into this letter, it is very clear that the Opposite Party sent a letter to the complainant informing the allotment of flat in Doddabanahallyand Kaniminike by taking consent from the complainant.  So on 21.04.2014, the complainant gave his consent for allotment of flat in Doddabanahally and Kaniminike and he is not willing to take refund of the advance amount paid by him.   So from this evidence, it is falsely files the complaint that the Opposite Party has not responded,in spite of the complainant approached the Opposite Party in several documents and by addressing a letter dt.21.04.2014.  On theother hand, the letter dt.21.04.2014 Opposite Party has responded and issued letter dt.21.04.2014 itself.  But taking consent of the complainantallotted a flat in Doddabanahally and Kaniminike.  This clearly goes to show that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Hence, this point is held in the Negative.

9. POINT NO.2:-In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 18^thday of July 2016)

MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Venkatesh B.T, who being Complainant has filed her affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. 1^st& 2^nd Notification from BDA
2. Requesting letter submitted for BDA
3. Complaint letter to BDA on 21^st April 2014
4. Application to BDA from Venkatesh B.T
5. Application submission dat.12.05.2012,
6. Application from Mahesh BasvarajAwati
7. Application Submission date.15.05.2012
8. Allotment list from BDA to Mahesh BaswarajAwati
9. No response from BDA
10. Paper Notification from BDA-clearly mentioned allotment will be given on 1^st come 1^stserved basis.
11. 3^rd Notification called through paper on June 13, for same flats due to poor response from public. 
12. Video colonoscopy Report.
13. Laboratory Report
14. Credit final Bills,
15. Discharge Summaries,

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

                                      No.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Parties:

                                     NIL

MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT