Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

   Member

1.  The Complainant has filed compliant Under section 12 of CP Act 1986 against the opposite party society and seeking a direction to the opposite party to allot a site measuring 30X40 feet (9x12 meters) and to execute a registered sale deed in their layout to be developed  in survey no.181/1, 184/1,2,3,4,5 of Vajamangala Village, Mysuru without demanding any additional amount and to pay a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards mental agony, hardship etc., with such other reliefs.

2. The complainant is an employee of Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and a member of opposite party co-operative society had submitted an application for allotment of a site measuring 30x40 feet (9x12 meters). A sum of Rs.1,90,950/-has been  paid towards entire sale consideration. Based on the seniority, the opposite party  has allotted a site bearing no.169 situated in its 4^th Stage layout to be developed in survey no 181/1, 184/1,2,3,4,5 of Vajamangala Village, Mysuru. However the opposite party failed to issue the letter of allotment nor execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. The opposite party has failed to give proper reply to the quires.

3.  In spite of payment of Rs. 1,90,950/-the opposite party demanded an additional sum of Rs. 2,44,988/- in excess of total sale consideration after the lapse of more than seven years, quoting increase in material cost and cost of developmental work. Frustrated with the demand of additional amount, the complainant with other members of the society with the similar grievance have got issued a legal notice on 26.07.2017, calling upon the opposite party to allot and register a site. But the opposite party replied the notice un tenably. The complainant learnt that, the opposite party was executing registered sale deed in favour of other members of the society by overlooking his seniority. The opposite party replied to another legal notice dated 28.05.2018 on 11.06.2018 and demanded for additional amount. Due to the inordinate delay in execution of registered sale deed, the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party society. Hence, filed this complaint seeking reliefs.

4. On issue of notice from this commission the opposite party society appeared through their counsel and filed its version by denying the allegation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Further, the opposite party submitted that they are registered Under Section 17 of “The Karnataka Co-operative Society Act 1959” thereby the present complaint does not survive by this commission for consideration and hence liable to be dismissed.

5. Further, in order to allot the site to its members they have tentatively fixed the sale consideration at Rs. 1,90,950/- for a site measuring 30 x 40 feet (9x12 meters) is admitted. The payment of Rs. 1,90,950/- towards allotment of site by the complainant is also admitted. Further the complainant did not come forward to pay Rs.2,44,988/- towards the balance sale consideration. Hence, upon failure to pay the balance sale consideration the site was not allotted and  not executed the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. As such there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence prays for dismissal of complaint with cost.

6. Both side parties have filed their affidavit evidence alongwith several documents. After filing written arguments, the respective counsels addressed oral arguments, relaying on several decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission.

7. After perusing the material evidence on record, the matter posted for orders:

8. The following points arose for our consideration:

1. Whether the complainant establishes the payment and demand for payment of additional amount for allotment of site and deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2. What order?

9.     Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative

      Point No.2:- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

10.     Point No.1:- The complainant counsel submitted that, a total sum of Rs. 1,90,950/- had been paid to the opposite party society on various dates towards purchase of a site measuring  30x40 feet (9 x12 mts), in their 4^th Stage layout to be developed near Vajamangala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk.  To prove his contentions, the complainant produced several payment receipts and also the communication letters. Further argued that, despite of payment of substantial amount he was made to wait for more than seven years and then the opposite party had demanded another sum of Rs. 2,44,988/- towards allotment of site, which he alleged as illegal and arbitrary. Frustrated with the untenable reply to the notice, he suffered mental agony and hardship and hence the aggrieved alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite party. Hence the complaint seeking reliefs.

11.       The counsel for opposite party society has vehemently argued that, the society is registered under “The Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959” thereby the present complaint does not survive for lack of jurisdiction and liable for dismissal. Further, the opposite party society admitted the payment of Rs. 1,90,950/- by the complainant, towards allotment of site. However, the said amount was tentatively fixed and later on based on the cost of developmental work, the sale consideration was revised to 4,35,938/- which was approved by the authority. The complainant’s seniority was maintained based on payment and also approved by the Deputy Registrar of co operative societies, Mysore. Based on the order passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, they demanded for payment of an additional sum of Rs.2,44,988/- towards balance sale consideration, before allotment and registration of the site in favour of the complainant. As such, the opposite party argued that, even today they are ready and willing to allot the site and execute necessary deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant, subject to payment of the balance sale consideration. Therefore, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is denied and are not liable to pay any compensation.

12.      The counsel for complaint relied on decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2017(1) CPR 714 in the matter between “Prayas Community Living Centre and Bahni Mandal and another”, wherein it was held that, a consumer complaint filed against a society is maintainable. Therefore, this commission held that the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable.

13.      Further the complainant relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV 2012 CPJ 461 in the matter between “Lt. Col.Managal Singh Nagal and HUDA and another” wherein it was held that, for the belated possession, compensation for mental agony and harassment and costs shall be paid. Accordingly, this commission held that, the complainant is entitled for compensation for the belated allotment of site and also for mental agony and harassment.

14.      The Material documents on record established that, the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs. 1,90,950/- starting from 30.06.2006 until 10.08.2011 to the opposite party society towards allotment of site measuring 30x40 feet(9x12 mts) in their 4^th stage layout to be developed near Vajamangala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk,. The “Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore” have approved the seniority list as prepared by the opposite party society based on the payment received. In which complainant name also appeared. Based on the final order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the “Registrar of Co-operative Societies Bangalore”, the price of the site was fixed at Rs. 4,35,938/- Accordingly, the opposite party society demanded for payment of balance consideration of Rs. 2,44,988/- before allotment and registration of site in favour of the complainant. Thereby the complainant bound to pay the balance sale consideration to the opposite party society for needful. Further, holding the substantial amount for more than seven years without allotment and handing over the possession of the site and demand of additional amount  attributed to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the opposite party society is liable to pay compensation. Accordingly the point no.1 is answered partly in the affirmative

15.      Point no.2:- With the above discussions, on point no 1 we proceed to pass the following:

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The Complainant is here by directed to pay Rs. 2,44,988/- to the opposite party society within 45 days from today towards allotment of site in his favour.
3.  The opposite party is hereby directed to allot residential site measuring 30x40 ft (9x12 mts) in their 4^th stage, layout developed near Vajamangala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, within 30 days after receipt of balance sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant.
4. The opposite party society shall pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant for the inordinate delay in allotment and handing over the possession of the site and also for causing mental agony and harassment.
5. The opposite party society shall pay Rs 5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant
6. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the   28^th September, 2020)