COMPLAINT FILED: 25.09.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 20th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2096/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Lingrajappa,<br /> S/o. Maralasiddappa,<br /> Hindu, Major,<br /> R/o. 72, Venkateshwara Layout,<br /> (Near B.C.C. Layout)<br /> Vijayanagar 2nd Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 040.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (R. Shailesh Kumar)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Aircraft Employees <br /> Co-Operative Society Ltd.,<br /> No. 15, 1st Cross,<br /> C.K.C. Garden,<br /> Opp. B.I.O Hospital,<br /> K.H. Road, (Double Road)<br /> Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> Rep. by its Secretary.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Bipin Hegde)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to allot a site and register a site and pay a compensation and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, who claims to be the co-operative society engaged in formation of residential layouts consisting of sites of various dimensions thought of becoming member of the OP society. OP accepted the membership of the complainant and promised to allot him a site measuring 30 X 40 feet in their layout. Complainant paid the entire sital value of Rs.81,000/-. With all that OP failed to allot a site and register a site in his favour. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. OP on one or the other reason went on postponing the registration of a site under the guise of civil litigation, land acquisition proceedings. But thereafter complainant came to know that the junior most members of the society have been allotted with the site overlooking the seniority of this complainant. Not only that OP society executive members have misappropriated the funds. When his repeated requests and demands went in vain he wrote a letter to OP on 31.08.2006 to allot him a site, again there was no response. Thus for no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. On insistence OP came up with a defence that as he failed to pay the sital value in time his membership is cancelled. The arbitrary act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Complainant became the defaulter in non-payment of the entire sital value inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the OP. Actually OP has completed the said project in time, because of the default on the part of the complainant they are unable to allot him a site and register him a site. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and frivolous. The complaint is hit by sec-70 of the Co-operative Society Act. It is further contended that the complainant has slept over his rights and filed this time barred complaint. If the complainant is very much interested in acquiring the site OP is prepared to allot him a site in their new project at Kudlu Singasandra Village, Sarjapura Hobli. When that is so, complainant cannot allege the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant became the member of the OP society in the year 1989 and opted to purchase a site measuring 30 X 40 feet. Towards the cost of the said site complainant has paid Rs.81,000/-. Of course OP has set up the defence that it has received only Rs.79,500/-. It is further contended by the complainant that though he made the said payment by the end of year 1997, OP failed to allot him a site as promised, but OP arbitrarily allotted a site to the junior most members overlooking his seniority. Thus he felt the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended by the complainant that when he made repeated requests and demands to the OP to allot a site and register a site, OP went on postponing the said request on the ground that the land acquired for the formation of the said layout are under dispute. There is a legal hurdle as well as acquisition proceedings are also pending. To substantiate this contention OP has not produced any documents. So the defence of the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. It is further contended by the OP that the complaint is hit by section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act. We do not find force in the said defence so also that of the complaint being barred by limitation.<br /> <br /> 8. When once OP admits the membership of the complainant and the receipt of the sital value, till it allots the site and register the site complainant will get the recurring cause of action. Of course according to OP the cost of the site is increased to Rs.86,800/- and though they wrote letters to the complainant in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008, complainant did not respond to that. Hence they cancelled his membership treating him as a defaulter. This act of the OP appears to be arbitrary, unjust and improper. The difference of cost is hardly about 6 to 7 thousands. Complainant says he paid Rs.81,000/-, OP admits the receipt of Rs.79,500/-. With all that what made the OP to cancel his membership is not known. Here also we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 9. Of course OP has come up with a defence that the layout in which complainant sought the site at Kudlu Singasandra is completed, all the sites were allotted to the eligible members and no such vacant sites are available at the disposal of the OP, so they are unable to allot any site to the complainant. The complainant has not produced any other document to show that there are still other vacant sites available at the disposal of the OP. When that is so, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the sital value with interest and pay some compensation along with a litigation cost. Of course OP has come up with a proposal that they are ready to allot a site to the complainant at their new project near Kudlu Singasandra Village, Sarjapura Hobli. Complainant has not accepted the said offer, as that project is not completed nor it is in the stage of statutory approval. Complainant is justified in refusing the said offer.<br /> <br /> 10. Having considered all these facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice we find it is a fit case, wherein complainant deserves certain relief. Though complainant invested his hard earned money in the year 1997, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. OP having retained the said huge amount for all these years without allotting the site and registering the site accrued the wrongful gain to itself, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant. When that is so, complainant deserves certain relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.81,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from August 1997 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as the guidance value of the site along with a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />