BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.281/2021

DATED ON THIS THE 30^th July 2022

      Present:   1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Smt.Lalitha.M.K.,

M.A., B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER  

                        3) Sri Maruthi Vaddar,

                                                B.A., LLB (Special)  - MEMBER

Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

PRESIDENT

1.       The complainant Sri H.R.Prashanth, resident of Mysuru has filed this complaint against the opposite party – Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), Mysuru, praying to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.16.33 lakhs towards expenses forced on the complainant which inclusive of interest payable at 2% p.a. from the respective dates of incurring the expenses till its realization and such other reliefs towards mental agony and litigation expenses as this Commission deemed fit to grant.   
2.       The brief facts are that:-

The complainant was a successful bidder in the E-auction of MUDA and was allotted site No.2541/A (Sl.NO.37) measuring 5.8 mtrs x 7.60 mtrs in Hebbal 2^nd Stage against the quoted price of Rs.13.05 lakhs by bidding Rs.14.65 lakhs and he availed a composite loan of Rs.10.65 lakhs from LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Mysuru on 30.10.2018 and paid EMI of Rs.13,761/- for 28 months.MUDA created Khata, issued NOC/EC, collected annual property tax for 2 years from 2018-19 and 2019-20.When the complainant attempted to put up compound wall for his site during August 2018, a person appears and conveys that he is the owner of the site and it does not belong to MUDA.Therefore, a matter was referred to MUDA and it was revealed that MUDA not acquired it, but sold it as it belongs to MUDA.Therefore, the MUDA suggested the complainant to cancel the existing registered sale deed and loan arrangements and approach for a new site allocation and the cost of registration charges, connected fees and cost were made to be borne by the complainant.Accordingly, the complainant cancelled the registration of sale deed and outstanding loan was closed with LIC HFL. Thereafter, MUDA allotted alternate site is slightly bigger site on 07.01.2021 and registered the same in the name of the complainant on 23.03.2021.The cost incurred by the complainant towards first allotted site is mentioned in detail in a table annexed at para 3 (e) of the complaint, the complainant sought refund of the expenses from OP but OP denied it hence it is alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP. The complainant exhausted all possible options available.But, the OP could not resolve the issue. Thereafter, legal notice was issued to OP on 18.11.2021, but the MUDA did not reply the same.Hence, this complaint.

3.       After registration of this complaint, notice was ordered to be issued to opposite party. In response to notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed version contending that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed and the complaint is filed to have unlawful gain from the OP and admitted the averments made in the para 2 of the complaint that the complainant had purchased site No.2541/A measuring 5.8 mtrs x 7.60 mtrs in E-auction and sale deed was excuted in his name and also admitted the averments made in para 3 of the complaint that the complainant had paid Rs.14.65 lakhs towards purchase of site in auction as he was a highest bidder and as the said site was not acquired by the OP, it was instructed to complainant to get the sale deed cancelled.  Therefore, an alternate site No.2210 in 2^nd Stage of Hebbal Layout, Mysuru City measuring 6 x 9 mtr was allotted to complainant on 23.03.2021 and executed registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and all the documents pertaining to the said site were transferred in the name of the complainant and possession was also delivered and contended that no cause of action was arose to file the present complaint and the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation and all the allegations made against the OP are all far away from the truth and OP has not caused any defidiency of service.  Instead allotted a higher dimension site to the complainant.  The prayer sought by the complainant to pay Rs.16.33 lakhs with interest at 2% p.a. is nothing but to have unlawful gain from the OP and contended that on 15.03.2019 site No.2541 has been registered in the name of the complainant for which the amount of Rs.15,105/- has been incurred towards registration expenses by the complainant.  The said amount cannot be refunded by the OP as per the Rules and Regulations of the OP and it is further contended that the present complaint is filed only with intention to harass the OP.  Therefore, prays to dismiss the complaint.       
4.        The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.78.  On the other hand, opposite parties have also filed affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as R.W.1.    
5.       Heard the arguments of both sides.  The counsel for complainant has also filed written arguments. . 
6.        The points that would arise for our consideration are as under

1. Whether the complainant proves that the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

7.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.          Point No.1:- The admitted facts arethat, the complainant was a successful bidder in E-auction of MUDA and he was allotted site No.2541/A measuring 5.8 mtrs. x 7.60 mtrs. in Hebbal 2^nd Stage against quoted price of Rs.13.05 lakhs by bidding Rs.14.65 lakhs and MUDA created Khata and issued NOC/EC and collected property tax in respect of said site from the complainant.  The said fact has been admitted by the OP in the version.  It is the specific contention of the complainant that the aforementioned site was not belongs to OP when he visited the site, he came to know that one person told him that the said site belongs to him and not belongs to OP and OP not acquired the said site.  Therefore, on enquiry, he came to know that the allotted site to the complainant has not been acquired by the MUDA hence, it is alleged that the MUDA without any authority allotted site No.2541/A to the complainant in E-auction and received Rs.14.65 lakhs from the complainants towards cost of the site and made the complainant to bear all the expenses such as registration expenses and all statutory and non-statutory expenses.  Therefore, it is alleged that the OP has caused deficiency in service.  Further, it is the case of the complainant that the OP after coming to know that the site No.2541/A allotted to complainant through E-auction has not been acquired and the same was not belongs to OP, it had allotted alternate higher dimension site No.2210 in 2^nd stage, Hebbal, Mysuru measuring 6 x 9 mtr for a total sum of Rs.17,94,692/- and all the formalities such as registration of said site in the name of the complainant, change of khatha, collecting the property taxes and issuance of NOC and delivery of possession in the name of the complainant has been completed by the OP.  It is the specific allegations and contention of the complainant that even though the earlier site allotted to complainant was not belongs to OP, it had allotted the same to the complainant and made him to get the title deed executed in his favour and to incur all statutory and non-statutory and other incidental expenses towards said site. Therefore, it is alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  hence, the present complaint is filed seeking direction to OP to pay of Rs.16.33 lakhs in favour of the complainant. There is no basis in arriving calculation by the complainant and seeking payment of Rs.16.33 lakhs from OP.  The complainant has arrived to the conclusion as if that all the costs including site value incurred by the complainants towards first allotted site has to be refunded by OP which is highly exaggerated and speculative demand made by the complainant.  Admittedly, the MUDA allotted first site No.2541/A measuring 5.8 x 7.60 mtrs in Hebbal 2^nd Stage, Mysuru and collected site cost of Rs.14.65 lakhs from the complainant. After coming to know that the said site has not been acquired by MUDA, an alternate higher dimension site allotted as stated supra bearing No.2210 in 2^nd Stage, Hebbal, Mysuru which measures 6 x 9 mtrs for Rs.17,94,692/- which is slight larger dimension site than the earlier site allotted to the complainant by adjusting the value of earlier allotted site to subsequently allotted site. Therefore, the complainant incurred an extra amount of Rs.3,29,692/- towards cost of 2^nd allotted site No.2210, since the site No.2210 is the higher dimension site and the complainant incurred expenses towards registration charges and other incidental charges for registration of site No.2210 in 2^nd Stage, Hebbal, Mysuru and all the formalities have been completed and he had also paid tax to site No.2210 and MUDA transferred the khata in the name of the complainant and delivered the possession of the same.  When things stood so, the complainant as if he has right to recover the entire site cost incurred towards purchase of first site, has come up with the present complaint seeking direction to OP to pay Rs.16.33 lakhs to the complainant with interest which appears that there is no meaning in claiming such amount by the complainant from the OP and it has no basis at all.  At the most it appears that the expenditure incurred by the complainant such as registration charges including stamp duty and cancellation charges of registered sale deed and all statutory and non-statutory and incidental expenses towards registration of first allotted site No.2541/A in the name of the complainant is a genuine amount to be refunded which is correct.  But, the complainant instead of claiming such amount has claimed the total value of the site from the OP.  Therefore, the claim of the complainant seeking directions to OP to pay Rs.16.33 lakhs is appears to be exaggerated and hypothetical and as contended by the OP, the claim of the complainant is nothing but to have wrongful and unlawful gain from OP.  The contention taken by the OP that the registration and cancellation of registered sale deed incurred by the complainant towards first allotted site cannot be refunded to the complainant as per the Rules and Regulations of the OP which is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of OP. Therefore, we are of the opinion that whatever expenses such statutory and non-statutory and other incidental expenses incurred by the complainant towards registration and cancellation of registered sale deed of first allotted site No.2541/A measuring 5.8 x 7.60 mtrs in 2^nd Stage, Hebbal, Mysuru including stamp duty shall be refunded to the complainant by the OP. The expenses are as under:-

1. Stamp duty of registration Rs.74,870/-
2. Registration charges Rs.14650/-
3. Incidental and miscellanoues expenses Rs.10,000/-
4. Site tax and khata charges Rs.8,549/-
5. Cancellaiton of title deed charges Rs.97,705/-     TOTAL Rs.2,05,774/-

      Hence, we answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative

9.       Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to refund the expenses such as registration and cancellation of registered sale deed expenses including stamp duty and other statutory and non-statutory and incidental expenses incurred by the complainant towards registration of first allotted site No.2541/A to the tune of Rs.2,05,774/- to the complainant within two months from the date of this order with interest at 6% p.a. thereon from 23.03.2021 till its payment.
3. Further, opposite party is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony caused to complainant and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the litigation within 2 months from the date of this order, failing which compensation of Rs.5,000/- + cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- shall carry interest at 10% p.a till payment.
4. The complainant is at liberty to take action against the opposite party under Section 72 of the C.P.Act, 2019 for non-compliance of this order.
5. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 30^th July, 2022)