R. BHAGYALAKSHI Vs. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 13.1.2011, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Banglore (for short as 'State Commission'). Vide impugned order, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed at the admission stage by the State Commission.

(2.) Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant had applied for allotment of residential site in the year 1986 with the respondent/O.P. It is alleged that on 25.2.2001, respondent allotted site bearing No. 715 measuring 40 x 40 feet in Hanchya-Sathagally Layout, Mysore but did not intimate the same to the petitioner. Thereafter, without intimation or without issuing any notice to the petitioner, respondent cancelled the allotment order on the ground of non-payment of the site value. The said fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner only when she applied for documents under the RTI Act. After knowing the said fact, petitioner got issued legal notice demanding to issue allotment letter. But respondent has not complied with the said notice. Therefore, for the said act of deficiency, petitioner filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore (for short as 'District Forum').

(3.) Respondent in its written objections denied the averments made in complaint. However, it has admitted the fact regarding allotment of site and the cancellation of the same for non-payment of site value, etc. Respondent denied about the allegations of non-intimation of the allotment order and cancellation of the said allotment order, behind the back of the petitioner without giving any notice. Respondent has stated in its objections that it gave the intimation of allotment of site to the petitioner and has also issued the endorsement dated 13.8.2002 to the petitioner for payment of site value. In spite thereof, petitioner has failed to deposit the balance amount of the site within the stipulated period. Therefore, with no other alternative order of allotment was cancelled or. 2.12.2002 and the same was intimated to the petitioner. Thus respondent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.