SOMASUNDARA Vs. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant in Complaint No. 17 of 1991 on the file of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent in the appeal (opposite party before the State Commission) is the Chair- man of the Mysore Urban Development Authority.

(2.) In response to a Notification dated 8.4.87 published by the respondent, the complainant made an application for the allotment of a A-l type house on a site measuring 40' X 60', the cost of which had been notified as amounting approximately to Rs. 2,90,000/-. The complain- ant made an initial payment of a sum of Rs. 72,500/- along with his application dated 20.7.1987. On 3.8.1987 the respondent herein the Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "MUDA")-allotted to the complainant House No. 15 on site No. 55 in Vijayanagar Layout, Mysore. Under the terms of the allotment letter the balance amount pay- able towards the cost of the house was to be remitted by the complainant in three further instalments of Rs. 72,500/-

(3.) Under Clause 2 of the Notification dated 8.4.1987 (Exhibit C-I), it had been stated that the construction of the houses would be completed within about two years from the date of allotment and arrangements would then be made for handing over possession of the houses. The grievance put forward by the complainant be- fore the State Commission was that though three instalments amounting in all Rs. 2,17,500/- had been paid by him to the respondent by 1.6.1989, the respondent failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period of two years from the date of allotment and as a consequence of such delay, the complainant was put to the necessity of shifting his residence from his original house wherein he was residing on rent and had to take up another house paying higher rent and he had also incurred loss by way of interest on the money invested by him besides the inconvenience suffered by him by occupying the similar accommodation. On all these grounds he sought to recover from the respondent a total compensation of Rs. 1,22,725/-.