UNIVERSAL PRINTERS vs EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KARNATAKA INDL.AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the order dated 29.10.1992 passed by the District Forum, Mysore, in Complaint No. CPA/203/91 dismissing the complaint.

THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows:- THE complainant purchased half an acre of land from the opposite party in 1985 for establishing the Small Scale Industry having paid a sum of Rs. 43,188/- towards 99% of the total cost of the area to be conveyed to him under a Lease-cum-Sale Agreement which came to be executed in the year 1988. THE complainant, thereafter, made several attempts to establish the industry. But he could not do so. On 30th May 1990, he received a letter from the opposite party calling upon him to pay an enhanced amount of Rs. 6,282/- towards the difference of the cost of the land. THE complainant protested for such a demand. THE complainant further averred that the opposite party had even granted extension of time upto 30th December 1990 for implementing the industrial project proposed to be set up. He was also permitted to mortgage the leasehold rights in favour of the Karnataka State Finance Corporation to raise loans. THE complainant nextly averred that the Karnataka State Finance Corporation though had sanctioned the loan but subsequently, it was cancelled. THE complainant on the basis of these averments sought interest on the sum of Rs. 43,188/- paid by him towards 99% of the total cost of the area paid by him on lease-cum-sale basis from the opposite party. He also sought waiver of Rs. 6,282/ - claimed by the opposite party towards escalated costs of the land and damages of Rs. 10,000/-. The opposite party filed its version and averred that the complainant was given adequate time upto 30th December, 1990 for implementing the industrial project for which he had obtained the land. It further averred that the complainant was even permitted to mortgage the leasehold rights in favour of the Karnataka State Finance Corporation to secure monies for erecting the building and installing the necessary plants and machinery. But the complainant was not able to establish the project for which he had obtained the land. The opposite party, on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed.

During enquiry, the complainant examined as P.W. 1 and got Exhibits P-l to P-9 marked in evidence.

THE District Forum, appreciating the material placed on record by the parties held that the complainant failed to establish any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, and in that view, dismissed the complaint. We have called for the records and received. We have also heard the parties and perused the records.

THE District Forum at para (5) of its order has referred to the evidence of the complainant which reads as under:- "A perusal of the records and evidence show that at different times, the complainant has claimed different reliefs. On the first occasion, he prayed for a direction to the opposite party to issue a No Objection Certificate to enable him to mortgage the land to the Karnataka State Finance Corporation. THEn, he prayed for a direction to the opposite party not to harass him by sending notices of resumption. THEreafter, he filed another complaint in which he has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to extend the time by three years as there are so many preliminaries like obtaining water supply, electricity, steel and cement at concessional rates and obtain fresh loan from the Karnataka State Finance Corporation. Thus in the same proceedings at different times he has prayed for different reliefs. On a consideration of the entire material placed on record, it is clear that he has a grouse against the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mandal Panchayat, Zilla Parishad, District Industries Centre, Karnataka Electricity Board, Urban Water Supply and Swerage Board, Karnataka State Finance Corporation, etc., If the delay is caused at all these levels according to him, it is difficult to attribute deficiency in service to the opposite party. Unless the complainant establishes that the opposite party is guilty of such a deficiency in service, he is not entitled to any relief under the Consumer Protection Act. His remedies lie elsewhere."

This would go to show that the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum considered the material placed on record by the complainant and came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to make out the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, and in that view, dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Having regard to the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the order of the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity. Absolutely, there are no grounds for us to interfere in the finding recorded by the District Forum.

IN the Result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Appeal dismissed.