Karnataka

Kolar

CC/58/2018

K.M.Seethalakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Earth Movers Employees House Building Co.Operative SOciety,BEML.BEML Post,kGF - Opp.Party(s)

GSR

26 Feb 2019

ORDER

Date of Filing: 13/07/2018

Date of Order: 26/02/2019

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 26^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 58 OF 2018

K.M. Seethalakshmi,

W/o. Late K.T. Anand,

Aged About 58 Years,

Kolathur Village, Yeldhur Post,

Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District.                            ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. Srinivas.G, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

The President,

Earth Movers Employees House

Building Co-operative Society,

Shipping Department,

BEML Post, K.G.F.

(Exparte)                                                                     …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) has sought relief against OP for issuance of directions to register seven sites at 2^nd stage or 3^rd stage layouts and also sought for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, her husband Late Sri. K.T. Anand was the employee of BEML and also a member of Earth Movers Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited was died on 26.06.2016 due to his unhealthiness.  To develop 2^nd stage layout at Gajaladinne Village Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk and District, the said society has collected advance amount from the society members.  Accordingly her husband has paid a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- vide receipt No.43 dated: 25.12.2004, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.46, dated: 25.12.2004 vise-versa her husband’s elder brother Sri. K.A. Nagarjuna has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- vide receipt No.1715, dated: 01.08.2003, and this complainant herself has paid Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.1721, dated: 30.09.2003, and her husband’s younger brother Sri. K.T. Venkatappa has paid Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.1723, dated: 01.10.2003 and Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.1940, dated: 05.03.2005 and her husband’s mother Smt. Chowdamma has paid Rs.1,09,000/- vide receipt No.1767, dated: 19.11.2003 and her husband’s brother K.T. Narayanaswamy has paid Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.1935, dated: 02.03.2005. 

 

(b)    Further complainant contends that, towards registration of the sites and for purchase of the land via EMECCS the OP has received Fixed Deposit amount.  Complainant husband’s elder brother K.A. Nagarjuna has paid Rs.75,000/- vide receipt No.3811, dated: 01.09.2003 and Rs.1,50,000/- vide receipt No.3815, dated: 01.10.2003 and her husband’s younger brother K.T. Venkatappa has paid Rs.80,000/- vide receipt No.3844, dated: 01.03.2004 and her husband’s mother Chowdamma has paid Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.3820, dated: 21.11.2003 and her husband’s younger brother K.T.Narayanaswamy has paid Rs.10,000/- vide receipt No.3848, dated: 05.04.2004 and her husband’s sister K.T. Rathna has paid Rs.10,000/- vide receipt No.3819, dated: 05.11.2003 and her husband’s another sister K.T.Venkatamma has paid Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.3852, dated: 05.05.2004 to the OP. 

(c)    The complainant further contended that, for the sake of purchase of the above said land her husband has borrowed hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from her husband’s sister K.T. Rathnamma, Rs.15,00,000/- from A.V. Vasudevareddy by pleadging cheque, Rs.1,00,000/- from R.Rajanna vide receipt No.40, dated: 28.11.2004, Rs.1,00,000/- from Patil vide receipt No.31, dated: 25.10.2004, Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.37, dated: 19.11.2004, Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.34, dated: 12.11.2004, Rs.2,30,000/- from H.M. Manjunath and H.M.Janardan by pleadging the site documents, Rs.2,00,000/- from Basavegowda by keeping cheque, Rs.40,000/- from K.R. Ramesh, Rs.2,00,000/- from N.Krishnasheety by keeping cheque.  Now Krishna, N.Krishnasheety, Basavegowda, H.M.Manjunath and H.M. Janardan, Patil and A.V.Vasudevareddy have lodged recovery proceedings against the complainant and the same is pending.  And the loan borrowed from H.M. Manjunath and H.M.Janardan of Rs.2,30,000/- and from K.R.Ramesh Rs.40,000/- were settled by complainant’s husband during his life time from his own pocket. 

 

(d)    Even after purchase of said properties the society has not allotted and registered the sites to the members those who paid advance amounts.  The OP society has sold out sites to other people other than the members and earned crores together money with this as against to the Bylaws of the society.  In this regard, her husband has given complaint to Lokayuktha Police for misappropriation.  The society has fixed a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- per site even though has not allotted to the members.  Her husband has given to OP a sum of Rs.25,70,000/- by giving his personal cheques to other people.  They have filed a cheque cases against her husband which are still pending.  Thus her husband has paid Rs.2,35,000/- to OP for sites and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has paid for site and in total a sum of Rs.30,05,000/- which the OP is liable to pay to her husband.  And OP has not registered 07 sites to him.  After his death she being a legal heir, she had issued a legal notice through her counsel on 30.05.2018 which was refused to receive by OP.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this case by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   On perusal of order-sheet OP has placed exparte.

 

04.   The complainant has submitted her affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and submitted the below mentioned documents:-

(i) Copy of Notice issued to OP.

(ii) Receipts issued by OP to husband of the complainant

(iii) Copy of the register regarding payment details made by the complainant’s husband to OP.

(iv) Unserved envelop cover

(v) Copy of Aadhar Card of complainant

(vi) Copy of Death Certificate of complainant’s husband

(vii) Copies of Vouchers

 

05.   Heard arguments of counsel of complainant.

 

06.   Now the only point that does arise for our consideration is that:-

“Whether this complaint is maintainable on the grounds of jurisdiction and limitation?”

 

07.   Our finding on the above point is in the Negative for the following:-

REASONS

08.   The complainant has pleaded as, her husband was the secretary and member of the said society and was died on 26.06.2016, during his period he has paid Rs.1,35,000/- vide receipt No.43 and Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.46, dated: 25.12.2004 towards payments for site as advance and also the complainant husband’s elder brother Sri. K.A. Nagarjuna has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- vide receipt No.1715, dated: 01.08.2003, and this complainant herself has paid Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.1721, dated: 30.09.2003, and her husband’s younger brother Sri. K.T. Venkatappa has paid Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.1723, dated: 01.10.2003 and Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.1940, dated: 05.03.2005 and her husband’s mother Smt. Chowdamma has paid Rs.1,09,000/- vide receipt No.1767, dated: 19.11.2003 and her husband’s brother K.T. Narayanaswamy has paid Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.1935, dated: 02.03.2005 and there were pending of cheque cases against her husband in other courts and she has also pleaded as there was misrepresentation in the society thus her husband has given complaint to concerned Lokayuktha police and she has prayed for allotment of 07 sites to her being the legal heir of Sri. K.T. Anand. 

 

09.   The complainant has pleaded as, her husband has paid Rs.2,35,000/- in total towards sites and also pleaded as, OP society has to pay a balance sum of Rs.30,05,000/- to her husband towards the advance amount of the sites.  On perusal of entire documents submitted by the complainant no where reveals towards payment of total amount of Rs.30,05,000/-.  Hence this pleadings cannot be believable. 

 

10.   Of course the complainant being legal heir of K.T. Anand can sue only up to her husband’s grievance and her grievance if at all anything with supportive documents, but in this complaint she has pleaded for different people had paid different amount altogether she prayed for relief.  Therefore in our view, what locus-standi does she is having, to sue, on behalf of these different people as in her pleadings in the point of law and also the pleadings are intermingled with criminal cases i.e., cheque cases against her husband about misappropriation with Lokayuktha Police.  Therefore, we opined that, intermingled causes of pleadings cannot be decided and we lack jurisdiction to probe in to all these intermingled causes of pleadings.

 

11.   On perusal of letter dated: 04.10.2011 and letter received dated: 29.01.2006 reveals that, the husband of the complainant has written letter to OP-Society as he had paid in total of Rs.2,35,000/- towards sites advancement and sought for allotment of the site.  But the letter does not disclose 07 sites to be allotted as prayed by the complainant in this complaint.  There is a suspect of this plea when her husband had not mentioned about any 07 sites in the said letter on what basis does the complainant is seeking 07 sites to be allot in this complaint.

 

12.   On perusal of death certificate submitted by the complainant, her husband was died during the year 2016 since 2004 up to 2016 there was no any other communication in this regard between them and after the death of her husband till 2018 up to the issuance of legal notice to the OP.  The complainant was also kept quite and no documents were reveals with regard to the communication with them.  Hence the point of limitation is barred and in accordance to the only issuance of legal notice does not sufficient to consider the point of limitation and also the complainant has not come with any application to set-aside the delay of limitation with sufficient reason. 

 

13.   In view of the above discussions we come to the conclusion that, this complaint is barred by limitation and jurisdiction and accordingly we answer the above Point is in the Negative and we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint is herewith dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 26^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019)

 

LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT