Here
is sastory of a common man who successfully fought against the whims of
Bangalore development authority.
Sri. Godapal Babu was excited,
when he
received
a site allotment letter
from BDA. At last after
six attempts
he had
his dream realized. He had
applied for an allotment of
site on six
occasions, under state government employee category as
well as general
public category. But his happiness was short
lived as the BDA send a cancellation letter
that too without assigning any reason. Many trips to
BDA office proved futile
to know the reason
for cancellation.
Sri.
Godapal
Babu approached
district consumer forum which passed orders in
favour of complainant. District consumer forum held that
sum of total
of all attempts made under all and every category under BDA (allotment of sites) rules 1984
should
be treated
as attempt for arriving at allotting
the sites. As usual BDA
challenged
the order and approached state commission where
the verdict went in favour of Godapal Babu. BDA a went in appeal
to national
commission.
The allotment of
sites is guided by
four parameters prescribed in BDA (allotment of sites) rules 1984, martial status of the applicant, income of
the applicant, number of
attempts
made, and whether any land of
the applicant is acquired by
BDA. Both the
district forum and state commission felt that all attempts,
irrespective of the category should form the basis for allotment, whereas BDA maintained that the number of
attempts
in each category should
be the basis of allotment of sites.
National commission
has to decide whether the total numbers of attempts in all categories are attempts under each category separately should form the basis of allotment. Relying on judgment
of Hon. Supreme
Court,
in case of Lucknow Development
Authority VS
MK Guptha, in national
commission held that more
liberal interpretation of rules need
to be given by statutory
authorities, while dealing with common man.
Upholding
the decision of the
lower forums the NC has said that a plain reading of the BDA rules makes it clear that at best it is silent on the point that number of attempts
to be read in each category separately
or altogether. So when the
law is silent
on a point, the benefit will go to the complainant. Further the NC has held
that cancelation of allotment without sufficient ground
is certainly
a deficiency.
Awareness among the consumers is increasing and they are approaching consumer grievance redressal cell for remedies One Sri. N.Y. Madhava Murthy had paid 62,680 to Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders for a site inVajragiri Township. Since he has taken a loan for
building a house in another site he approached the builders for the refund of the money, which was refused. He complained to the second additional consumer forum, which found the builder guilty of deficient service and ordered for refund of money.
Mr. Promod Kulkarni had entered into an agreement with First Realty in HMT Layout
for purchase of a flat In Mayflower Heights in BTM Layout. He had paid Rs. 4,00,000 to the firm but the firm gave him two alternatives, one flat on the
151 floor of the Mayflower Geetanjali to be built by a sister concern M/s. First Foundation, at T" Block,Jayanagar.The complainant
entered in to a fresh agreement, but the builders offered another flat on the third floor in the project to be constructed at Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Later on the firm wrote to him that a new project at BTM Layout would be ready for occupation by December 2000, but on inspection it was found that there was no substantial development in
the project and did not pay further amounts. He approached the
consumer court, which
observes that First Realty has failed to complete any of the projects it has promised. Consumer court ordered for refund of Rs. 4,00,000 at 24% and Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for deficient service along with Rs. 5000 as costs.
Mr. D.S. Shekhara Reddy had paid Rs. 5000 to Kapoor Construc- tions Ltd. in Malleswaram in February 2001 for booking a plot/house at Attur Layout, Bangalore. Subsequently he withdrew from the projects and requested for the refund of the money paid. They did not return the money and the consumer forum found them guilty of deficient service. The firm was ordered to refund
Rs. 5000 to the
complainant.
For more info:
No comments:
Post a Comment