National Consumer Forum Decision against BDA

 

Here is a story of a common man who successfully fought against the whims of Bangalore development authority. Sri.Godapal Babu was excited, when hreceivea site allotmenlettefrom BDAAt lasaftesix attempts hhad hidream realized. Hhaappliefor aallotment of siton sioccasions, undestate government employecategory as well as general public categoryBut hihappiness was short lived as thBDA send a cancellation letter that too without assigning any reason. Many tripto BDA office provefutilto know threason for cancellation.

Sri. Godapal Babu approached districconsumeforum which passeorderin favouof complainantDistricconsumer forum held that sum of totaof all attemptmadundeall and every categorunder BDA (allotment of sites) rules 1984should btreateas attempt for arriving at allottinthe sites. As usual BDA challengethe ordeand approached statecommission wherthe verdicwent in favour oGodapal BabuBDA a went iappeato nationacommission.

Nationacommission has tdecide whethethtotal numbers of attempts in all categories are attempts undeeachcategory separately should form thbasis of allotmentRelying on judgment oHonSupremCourtin case of LucknowDevelopment Authority VS MK Guptha, in nationacommission held that morliberal interpretatioof rules need tbe given by statutory authorities, whildealinwith common man.

Upholdinthdecisioof thloweforumthe NC has said that a plain reading of thBDA rules makes it clear thaat bestit is silent on thpoint that numbeof attempttbread in eaccategory separatelor altogetherSo when thlaw is silent opoint, thbenefiwill go to the complainantFurther the NC has helthacancelatioof allotment withoutsufficient ground is certainly a deficiency.

Awarenessamong the consumers is increasing and they are approachingconsumer grievanceredressal cell for remedies One Sri. N.Y. Madhava Murthy hadpaid 62,680 toMegacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders for a siteinVajragiri Township. Since hhas takeloan for building a house in anothesithe approached thbuilderfor threfund of themoney, whicwas refusedHe complained tthe second additionaconsumer forumwhich found the buildeguilty of deficient servicand orderefor refundof money.

Mr. Promod Kulkarnihad entered into an agreement with First Realty in HMTLayout for purchase of a flat In Mayflower Heights in BTMLayout. Hhad paid Rs. 4,00,000 to thfirm but the firm gavhim two alternatives, one flat on the15floor of thMayfloweGeetanjali tbbuilt by a sisteconcern M/sFirst Foundation, at T” Block,Jayanagar.Thcomplainant entered in to a fresagreementbut thbuilders offereanotheflaon ththird floor in theproject tbe constructeat Begur HobliBangalorSouth Taluk. Lateon the firm wrotthim thanew projecat BTM Layout would breadfor occupation bDecembe2000but on inspection it was found that therwas no substantial development in the project and did not pay further amounts. He approached the consumer courtwhich observethat First Realthas failed tocompletanof thprojectit has promised. Consumecourt ordered for refund oRs. 4,00,000 a24% 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 tKapooConstruc– tionLtdin Malleswaram in February 2001 for booking a plot/house at Attur Layout,Bangalore. Subsequentlhwithdrew from thprojects and requested for therefund of thmoney paidThey did not return thmoney and the consumerforum found theguilty of deficient service. Thfirm waordered to refund Rs.5000 tthe complainant

For more info:

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s