THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF JUNE 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 1640/2017

1.       The President

          KSFC Employees and Non-Employees House

          Building Co-Operative Society, Mysuru,

          No.481, 1^st Floor, 9^th Main Road,

          Vinaya Marga (Opp.Ganapathi Temple),

          Siddarthanagar, Mysuru-570 011.

2.       The Secretary,

          KSFC Employees and Non-Employees House

          Building Co-Operative Society, Mysuru,

          No.481, 1^st Floor, 9^th Main Road,

          Vinaya Marga (Opp.Ganapathi Temple),

          Siddarthanagar, Mysuru-570 011.

……….Appellant/s.

(By Shri/Smt S.B.Krishna, Adv.,)
                                   

                                          -Versus-

Dr.Somashekar S/o K.N.Ramanna

D.No.3910, 1^st Left Cross,

Near Seetha Cirle, Banashankari

3^rd Stage, Girinagar 4^th Stage,

VBHS Layout, Bengalore-560 085.

……….. Respondent/s

(By Shri/Smt Y.S.H. Reddy, Adv.,)

:ORDERS:

BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR  -  JUDICIAL MEMBER

         The appellant/Opposite Parties preferred this appeal against the order dated:23.06.2017 assed by the District Commission, Mysuru in C.C.No.86/2017.

2.      The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Party respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission. 

3.      The brief facts of the complaint is that:-

         The complainant became a member of the Opposite Party/Society by paying the registration fee and also paid Rs.1,32,000/- in three installments for allotment of site measuring 40X60 ft.  and apart from that the complainant also paid an amount of Rs.1,14,000/- towards 4^th, 5^th and 6^th installments on 01.12.2008.  Such being the case, the Opposite Party subsequently had increased the rate of the site by Rs.25/- per Sq.Ft on 22.10.2012 and demanded the complainant to pay the amount.  Accordingly, the complainant also paid Rs.2,46,000/- by way of D.D.  The Opposite Party/Society after receipt of the said amount had not allotted the site to the complainant.  The complainant observed that the Opposite Party/Society had allotted a site to some other person.  But without any reason the Opposite Party had not allotted the site to the complainant, for which the complainant alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Commission.  

4.      The Opposite Party not appeared before the District Commission and the notice issued by the District Commission was refused, for which the Opposite Parties were placed Ex-parte and passed an order directing the Opposite Party/Society to allot the site measuring 40X60’ in favour of the complainant within 60 days and in default, the Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.100/- per day along with cost and compensation.

5.      Being not satisfied with the order, the appellant/Opposite Parties before this Commission.

6.      On perusal of the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order and required documetns produced before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had paid amount as demanded by the Opposite Party for allotment of the site.  In spite of receipt of the entire amount towards the site, the Opposite Party had not allotted the site to the complainant, whereas the complainant has reflected in his complaint that the Opposite Party has allotted the sites to some other persons and gave an example of one Dr.Sridhar Murthy.

7.      The Opposite Party had not appeared before the Commission to take any defense against the allegations made by the complainant.  Subsequently, the District Commission allowed the complaint.

8.       It is seen that after filing the appeal, the appellant has not addressed the arguments to convince this Commission why the order of the District Commission has to be set-aside.  But in the memorandum of appeal they stated that they have appointed one person to look out the postal tappals, but they have not received any notice from the District Commission.  They came to know about the order of the District Commission only after the order passed by the District Commission which was produced by the Respondent.  Then they immediately rushed to this Commission.

9.       The contention made in the memorandum of appeal is not acceptable because once notice was refused, they cannot say it was not served and admitted by the Opposite Party that the complainant had paid the amount towards the allotment of the site.  We found there is no reason to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission and there are no any valid grounds established by the Opposite Party/appellant to set-aside the order.  As such the appeal is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly,

:ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

The impugned order dated:23/06/2017 passed by the Mysore District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.86/2017 is hereby confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District commission to pay the same to the Respondent /complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Sd/-                                                                                Sd/-

Member.                                                               Judicial Member.

Tss