BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

O R D E R

SRI.P.V.SINGRI, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties either to allot him a site or refund a sum of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 18% per annum and cost.

2.      The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The Complainant became the member of Chamundinagar (Slum) Social Welfare Association by paying prescribed membership fee during 1989 to 91 and also deposited a sum of Rs.50,501/- to the society towards allotment of a site measuring 20 x 30 feet.  The OP society, as per their bye law allot sites to its members like complainants who belong to economically weaker section.  The OPs also collected a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards allotment of site on priority basis through BDA in the year 2010.  The complainants who are poor, borrowed money from friends and relatives and paid the said sum to the OP with a fond hope of getting a site from BDA or from the society.  The OPs failed to allot any site to the complainant or get site from BDA.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 16.12.2011 and also 27.02.2012 calling upon the OPs either to allot him a site or refund the deposit amount.  The OPs sent untenable reply dated 16.12.2011.   The conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. 

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for an order directing the OPs either to allot him a site or refund him a sum of Rs.50,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of receipt till the date of realization with cost.

3. In response to the notice OP 1 & 3 appeared through their Advocate and filed their versions contending in brief as under:-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

One Sri.Harikrishna was founder and honorary secretary of OP-1 society.  The object of society was to get sites to its members through BDA.  The said Sri.Harikrishna because of his ill-health was unable to communicate properly with BDA authority for allotment of sites.  Thereafter, one Sri.V.S.Venkatachalapathy was appointed as honorary secretary and he worked from 05.04.2007 to 01.01.2012.  Due to his old age he tendered his resignation on 02.01.2012.  The secretary Sri.Prasanna Kumar S/o.Muniyappa, became honorary secretary with effect from 09.01.2012. OP-1 association does not collect any deposit/amount from the members towards purchase of site.  OP-1 society does not have any bank account.  OP-1 society in co-ordination with BDA tries to get allotment of sites to its members.  The society also does not form any layout for the purpose of allotment.  The complainant has forged the receipt for having paid Rs.501/- to the society and by paying Rs.50/- receipt dated 06.09.1989.   He has made it to appear as Rs.50,501/-.  Similarly the complainant also forged the other receipts in favour of his wife Smt.Gangamma as well as Anajanadevi W/o.Muniyappa.  The complainant has never paid a sum of Rs.50,501/- to the society. The society never demanded any such amount either from the complainant or any other members. 

The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 16.12.2011 stating that he has deposited a sum of Rs.50,501/- with the society during 1989 and calling upon society to refund the sum with interest.  However, the complainant along with others got issued another legal notice dated 27.02.2012(29.02.2012) stating that he has deposited Rs.5,100/- during 1989-1991 and paid Rs.10,000/- thereafter and demanded refund of Rs.15,000/- with interest at 10%. The discrepancy in these two notices, falsifies the claim of the complainant.  The complainant by concocting and forging the receipt issued by OP-1 society has come up with this false and fabricated complaint to harass the society. 

For aforesaid reasons, OPs 1 & 3 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. OP-2, Commissioner BDA, entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version stating that they are not at all aware of any transaction between the complainant and            OP 1 & 3 and they have never assured the complainant about allotment of site and also they have not received any deposit from the complainant and they have not at all liable to answer the complainant.  Therefore, OP-2 prays for dismissal for the complaint.

For the aforesaid reasons, OP-2 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. After the versions were filed by the OPs, the complainant was called upon to file his affidavit evidence.  Accordingly he filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. OP 1 & 3 also filed their affidavit evidence in support of the averments made in the versions. Written arguments have been submitted on behalf of the complainant as well as OP 1 & 3.

6. On the rival contention of the both the parties, the points that arises for our determination are as under:

1. Whether, the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint?

2. What relief or order?

7. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, the averments made in the versions of OP 1 to 3, the sworn testimony of both the parties, written arguments submitted by both the sides, various documents produced by both the sides and other material placed on record.

8. Our answer to the above points:

9.  POINT NO.1:  Initially, the present complaint was filed by one Smt.Gangamma W/o.C.Muddaiah, Smt.Anjanadevi W/o.B.H.Muniyappa and present complainant Sri.Muddaiah.  Subsequent to filing of the version the complainant C.Muddaiah made an application to delete Smt.Gangamma and Smt.Anjanadevi from the complainant and after hearing, the application came to be allowed and both the complainants Smt.Gangamma and Smt.Anjanadevi were deleted and the complainant Sri.C.Muddaiah continued to prosecute the present complaint. 

10.  The complainant claims that he paid membership fee during 1998-91 and deposited a sum of Rs.50,501/- towards allotment of site.  The complainant does not specifically mention the date on which he paid membership fee.  Likewise, the complainant does not specifically mention the date on which he deposited a sum of Rs.50,501/- to the society.  However, the complainant has produced a Xerox copy of the receipt dated 06.09.1989 to substantiate that he has paid a sum of Rs.50,501/- to the society.

11.  The OPs 1 to 3 took up a contention that the society does not collect any deposit from the members towards allotment of sites except the membership fee and their object is to get allotment of site from BDA.  It is also contended by OP-1 & 3 that they did not acquire any lands for the purpose of forming layout.  Therefore, there is no need for them to collect any amount towards the allotment of sites from BDA.  The OPs 1 & 3 brought to the notice of the Forum that they are making best efforts for allotment of site from the BDA.  OP 1 & 3 also contended that the society does not maintain any bank account, does not collect any deposit towards allotment of sites from anybody including its members.  To substantiate their contention OPs 1 & 3 produced the authorised copies of proceedings of the Annual General Body meeting held on 27.08.1989 and the audit report for the period of the society from 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1989.  The perusal of the audit report for the above mentioned period discloses that the income of the society during the said period was Rs.1,122/- by way of subscription.  The balance sheet as on 31.03.1989 discloses that the closing balance for the said year is Rs.138.30Ps.  The complainant did not deny the genuineness of audit report which infact, has been produced from registrar of societies, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.  The said audit report goes to establish that the OP society except receiving the subscription fee from the members was not received any deposits towards allotment of sites.  The said audit report also does not reflect the payment of Rs.50,501/- by the complainant.

12.  OPs 1 & 3 seriously disputed the genuineness of the receipt dated 06.09.1989 and contended that the said receipt is forged and fabricated by the complainant for the purpose of filing of this complaint.

13. Though the said receipt is dated 06.09.1989, the complainant does not specifically mention in the complaint the date on which he paid the amount of Rs.50,501/-.  The complainant vaguely states in the complaint that the said amount was paid during the year 1989-91.  If at all the complainant has paid the said amount of Rs.50,501/- during the year 1989-91 then how he could get a single receipt for Rs.50,501/- on 06.09.1989.

14. It was brought to our notice that the complainant has added “50” behind “50”and added “1”subsequent to “50” to make it appear that the sum paid under the receipt is Rs.50,501/- instead of Rs.50/- only.  The close perusal of the said receipt with naked eye itself goes to show that the figure “50” and “1” have been added to the amount “50” in the receipt to make it appear that the amount paid is Rs.50,501/-.  The perusal of the copies of the receipts produced by the complainant in favour of his wife Smt.Gangamma and Anjanadevi also supported the contention of the OPs 1 to 3 that the said receipt has been fabricated.  Here also the word “50” and “1” have been added to make it appear that the amount paid under those two receipts is Rs.50,501/- instead of “50”.  Furthermore, the said Smt.Anjanadevi W/o.Muniyappa who original titled as complainant No.2, filed an affidavit dated 12.01.2013 before this Forum on 16.01.2013 in which she contended that she never gave her consent to file the present complaint and she has not signed the valakath and the complaint.  She further contended that she has not deposited any money with OP society much less Rs.50,501/- during 1989-91.  She also contended that copy of the receipt produced in this case is concocted and fabricated by the complainant. The said Smt.Anjanadevi stated in her affidavit that the complainant Sri.C.Muddaiah is her husband’s colleague during the year 2000.  He came to her and took Rs.5,000/- from her stating that he would get her a site at cheaper rate and he is yet to refund the amount to her.  The complainant neither in his affidavit evidence or in written arguments deny the allegations made in the said affidavit filed by Smt.Anjanadevi W/o.B.H.Muniyappa. We have no reasons to disbelieve the said affidavit filed by Smt.Anjanadevi in the back ground of various contentions raised by OP 1 & 3 and the documents placed on record. 

15. The complainant either in his affidavit evidence or in his written statement did not deny the correctness of audit report submitted by the OP society.  Thus it is established by OP-1 & 3 that the complainant never deposited a sum of Rs.50,501/- with the OP society on 06.09.1989.  Further it is established that the copy of the receipt dated 06.09.1989 is fabricated and forged by the complainant.  The complainant apart from forging and fabricating the receipt in his name has also forged and fabricated the receipt which are in the name of his wife Smt.Gangamma and in the name of Smt.Anjanadevi W/o.Muniyappa.

16. One more strong reason to believe that the receipts are forged, fabricated and concocted is the legal notices got issued by the complainant. The first legal notice got issued by the complainant is 16.12.2011 through his advocate Sri.C.G.Prakash, copy of the said legal notice is produced by the complainant at Annexure-D.  In the said notice it is alleged that OP 1 society has received deposit amount of Rs.50,501/- from the complainant towards allotment of site.  Further it is alleged in the said notice that since the OP society failed to allot any site, they are liable to repay the amount together with interest.  Subsequent to this notice, the complainant along with other members got issued another legal notice dated 27.02.2012 through advocate Sri.S.Narayana, which is at Annexure-E. In the said notice the complainant takes up altogether different stand and states that he deposited a sum of Rs.5,100/- during the year 1989-91 towards allotment of site measuring 20 x 30 feet.  It is further alleged in the legal notice that the secretary of the OP society further collected a sum of Rs.10,000/- from him with an assurance of allotment of site on priority basis through BDA.  In the said notice the complainant has called upon the OPs 1 & 3 to refund him a sum of Rs.15,000/- together with interest at 10% per annum.  There is no explanation from complainant regarding the serious discrepancy in the amount paid by him to the society in both the notices got issued by him, one 16.12.2011 and another 27.02.2012.  The complainant alleges that he has paid Rs.50,501/- in lum-sum though he did not mention the date on which he had paid the said amount.   In the legal notice dated 27.02.2012 the complainant alleges that he paid Rs.5,100/- to the OP society in 1989-91 towards allotment of site and the secretary of the  society collected another sum of Rs.10,000/-.  This serious discrepancy in the two notice falsifies the claim of the complainant.  Further the contents of the two notices as well as the material placed on record discussed in the above paragraphs goes to establish that the complainant having forged and fabricated a receipt has come up with this false complaint with a sole intention to make unlawful gain for himself and to harass the OPs.  The act of the complainant in forging and fabricated the receipts amounts to offences under various provisions of Indian Penal Court.  OP 1 & 3, if so advised shall lodge a criminal complaint against the complainant for forging and fabricating the above mentioned receipts for Rs.50,501/-.  It is also pertinent to note that despite the allegations that the copy of the receipt dated 06.09.1989 is forged and fabricated, the complainant did not bother to produce original receipt to show that the said receipt is genuine.

17. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant having forged and fabricated a receipt has filed this false complaint with a sole intention to harass OP 1 & 3 and for wrongful gain.  The complainant by filing this false complaint has compelled OP 1 & 3 to defend this false case by spending huge money.   Apart from this the complainant by bringing this false complaint has also wasted the precious time of this Forum.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that he shall be imposed with adequate cost to compensate the OPs.  Though OP-2 was not at all a necessary party to the complaint, complainant has arrayed OP-2 in this complaint thereby made them to appear to defend themselves in the case.  Therefore, he shall have to be directed to compensate OP-2 also. 

18. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  In the result we proceed to pass the following:-                  

                                      O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by complainant u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed. 

2. The complainant is directed to pay cost of Rs.12,000/- to OPs 1 & 3 and Rs.3,000/- to OP-2.

3. The complainant shall comply the order of this Forum within a period of eight weeks from the date of order.

4. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19^th day of February 2016)

MEMBER                               MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

NRS* 

C.C.No.1722/2012

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant dated 01.03.2013 Sri.C.Muddaiah

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs 1 & 3 Sri.Prasanna Kumar, honorary secretary dated 12.02.2012 and on behalf of the OP-2 Chief Manager dated 07.08.2012

MEMBER                               MEMBER                              PRESIDENT