KARNATAKA CONSUMER FORUM vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

THIS is an appeal filed by complainant No. 1 in Complaint No. CC-188/95 on the file of the District Forum, Mysore, dismissing his complaint.

THE present appellant alongwith one Sri K.S. Madhusudhan Bhatt, filed a complaint before the District Forum, Mysore against the respondents for the following reliefs : (1) to direct the opposite parties to give the list of applicants giving details of amounts deposited by each of the applicants who were not allotted houses by the opposite parties and for whom the deposit amount has been refunded and dates on which such refund was made and deails of applicants for whom such refund has not been made and reason for the same; (2) to treat every such applicant as a separate complainant for grant of relief on the question of jurisdiction; (3) to direct the opposite parties to refund the deposit amount with interest at 24% from the date of deposit to the date of payment to all these applicants claiming refund immediately (without deducting 25% from it); (4) to pay the 2nd complainant an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards the expenses he has incurred in visiting the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and correspondence he had to make; (5) to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the 1st complainant as cost of this representative complaint.

The District Forum by an order dated 18.9.1996 ordered that the 2nd complainant is entitled to get interest at 16% p.a. on Rs. 5,000/- from 8.4.1994 to 7.9.1995 which comes to Rs. 1,133/- and in respect of the 1st complainant, even though specifically the District Forum has not mentioned, the complaint was dismissed. From the reading of the order we can gather that the said complaint was dismissed. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted before us that the District Forum ought to have passed an order in the complaint filed by the 1st complainant. As mentioned above the relief which has been claimed by the 1st respondent is beyond the scope of the District Forum, such relief cannot be granted. The complainants have not furnished the details and it is in the nature of a public interest litigation and the District Forum being governed by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, cannot grant such relief and the District Forum was justified in not granting any relief to the 1st complainant/appellant. Hence, we see no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.