COMPLAINT FILED: 29.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 07th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 266/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt. Saraswathamma,<br /> Aged about 69 years,<br /> W/o. Late Muni Reddy,<br /> Residing at No. 153,<br /> Anjaneya Temple Street,<br /> Bangalore – 37.<br /> <br /> Advocate (M.L. Prakash Kumar)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Amarajyothi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.,<br /> Having its registered office <br /> at No. 46, MNK Rao Road,<br /> Basavanagudi,<br /> Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> Represented by its Secretary.<br /> <br /> Advocate (G.R. Mohan)<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 measuring 40 X 60 feet, execute the sale deed and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 /> Complainants are the owners of Sy. No. 70 and 72 situated at Domlur Village, Bangalore North Taluk having share of 1 acre 3 guntas. OP approached the complainant as a developer and promoters of the residential sites promising them to pay Rs.1.5 lakhs per acre with a one free site measuring 40 X 60 feet. Complainant consented for the same, but thereafter OP demanded the complainant to pay the cost of the site. Complainant paid Rs.46,527/-, but still OP failed to register the site in her favour. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant since for the last 15 years, went in futile. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the 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. According to OP complainant is the member of the OP house building co-operative society. When a dispute arose between the complainant and the OP, a complaint is filed before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society at Dispute No. JRB:2:MD:89/2002-03. On enquiry the said Joint Registrar allowed the said complaint directing the OP to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant with respect to a site measuring 40 X 60 feet or refund the sital value with interest. Being aggrieved by the said order OP preferred an Appeal before the KAT. The appeal is pending. Hence the present complaint filed before this Forum is pre-mature. Complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within her knowledge. The approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. When the matter is seized before the KAT, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. 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 some 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 Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is the case of the complainant that she owned a land bearing Sy. No. 70 and 72 at Domlur Village, Bangalore North Taluk and in the said land she has got a share to an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas. OP being the house building co-operative society approached the complainant to sell the said property to them and in turn they will pay the lump sum value and also allot a free site measuring 40 X 60 feet. Complainant agreed for the same, but thereafter OP failed to keep up its promise. On the other hand collected in all Rs.46,527/- from the year 1983 to 1987 towards the cost of the site. Even thereafter also OP failed to allot a site and register a site as promised. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant for the last 15 years, went in futile. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the same kind of dispute was raised before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, who has got the competent jurisdiction to deal with such disputes on hand and those complaints were came to be allowed by a considered order by the Joint Registrar, wherein it was directed to OP to register a site measuring 40 X 60 feet in favour of the complainant or in alternative refund whatever the amount that is received with 18% interest within 2 months from the date of the order. OP being aggrieved with the said impugned order preferred an appeal before the KAT and that appeal is pending for adjudication. <br /> <br /> 8. The complainant is aware of all these material facts, unfortunately she suppressed to mention the said facts in her complaints. So the approach of the complainant does not appears to be bonafide and reasonable. Though complainant has got a favourable order in her favour passed by the Joint Registrar, but still she has filed this complaint before the Forum. When the appeal is pending before the KAT, naturally the hands of the OP are tied to comply the said orders. Under such circumstances the allegations of the complainant with regard to deficiency in service appears to be baseless. When the complainant has got the equally efficacious relief to redress her grievance which is readily available to her at her disposal, she cannot agitate the same kind of relief by filing a separate complaint before the Forum, that too after lapse of 3 years or so.<br /> <br /> 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the complainant has to wait for the final decision before the KAT. During the pendency of appeal before KAT if any order is to be passed by this Forum, in our view it amounts to sub-judice. For these reasons we find the complaint is devoid of merits. No such prejudice will be caused to the complainant if this complaint is dismissed because she has got the other relief readily available at KAT. With these observations we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<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 07th day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />