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 1984should be treated as attempt for arriving at allotting the sites. As usual BDA challenged the order and approached statecommission 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 eachcategory separately should form the basis of allotment. Relying on judgment of Hon. Supreme Court, in case of LucknowDevelopment 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 bestit 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 withoutsufficient 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 themoney, which was refused. He complained to the second additional consumer forum, which found the builder guilty of deficient service and ordered for refundof 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 the151 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 theproject 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 tocomplete 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 therefund of the money paid. They did not return the money and the consumerforum found them guilty of deficient service. The firm was ordered to refund Rs.5000 to the complainant.
For more info: