IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 124/08 DATED 11-07-2008<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant N.Nagarajappa, S/o Nanjappa, R/at No.17, Vidyanagar, Nanjangud Road, T.Narasipura, Mysore District.<br /> (By Sri.M.D.Chandrashekar, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. N.Nanjaiah, (Falcon Employee), President, Employees House Building Co-operative Society, Hebbal, Lakshmikantha Nagar, Opp. Mahalakshmi Layout, C.T.P.E. Ltd., H.D.C.Road, Mysore.<br /> 2. C.K.Veerappa, S/o C.T.Kalappa, Falcon Employee, Secretary of Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Hebbal Lakshmikantha Nagar, Mahalakshmi Layout, Opp. to CIPET Layout, H.D.C.Road, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.K.B.G., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03.05.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 27.05.2008<br /> Date of order : 11.07.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 ½ MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a complaint presented by the complainant against the Opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievance that the Opposite party is a House Building Co-operative Society and that first and second Opposite parties are its President and Secretary. That he was one of the member of the Society was allotted a site measuring 30’ x 40’ bearing No.79 in Hebbal village fixing the value of the site as Rs.6,000/-. That he paid Rs.6,000/- on 22.03.1999 through MDCC Bank, but the Opposite parties dragged on the matter without executing sale deed with a malafide intention to cheat him. Then the Opposite parties have allotted that site in favour of one Smt.Lakshmi for Rs.1,20,000/- on 30.11.20040. That Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has cancelled the registration of Opposite party’s society vide his order dated 31.03.054 that even after closing the society Opposite parties have sold the sites in their personal names. That Opposite parties have intentionally closed the society with a malafide intention, even now the sites are available with the Opposite parties and therefore has prayed for a direction to the Opposite parties to allot him a site measuring 30’ x 40’ formed in survey no.79/A, 79/B of Hebbal village and also to award damages of Rs.50,000/- with cost.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties have filed their common version admitting that they were the office bearers, but they are not now the office bearers of the Opposite party society. They have further admitted that this complainant having paid Rs.6,000/- but stated that he has paid without their permission, that site no.79 was allotted to one R.K.Puttegowda and not to this complainant and they have stated that no allotment was made in favour of the complainant and that site allotted to Puttegowda is sold by him in favour of Smt.Lakshmi and it was not sold by them. They further admitted that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, Mysore has cancelled the registration of their society. Further stated to have issued reply to the notice given by the complainant and stated that the Society since has been closed they are not in a position to pay any money or allot a site, therefore have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. In the enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the first Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their complaint and version. The complainant has produced the share certificate, receipts for having pay certain amounts, copy of the letter he had addressed to the Opposite parties, copy of the licence issued in his favour and a letter issued to him by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society with a copy of the order passed by Deputy Registrar of Mysore cancelling the registration of the Opposite party society. Heard the counsel for the complainant and Opposite parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complaint against the Opposite parties is maintainable under law?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- Before we take up the issue of maintainability of this complaint on the ground that the Opposite party society is not at all in existence and the Opposite parties are no more the office bearers of that society, we shall take up the delay in this complaint approaching this Forum. The complainant stated to have become a member of that Opposite party society during the year 1981 and paid Rs.6,000/- for allotment of a site on 22.03.1999. Though the complainant has contended that he has been allotted site No.79 measuring 30’ x 40’ of Hebbal village, but admittedly he has not produced any such allotment letter or any documents for that matter to prove that he was allottee of that site Number. Thereafter he after paying Rs.6,000/- on 22.03.1999 appears to have kept quite for all these years without raising his voice either regarding non-allotment of a site or refund of his money. But, after lapse of several years he woke up to get a legal notice issued to the Opposite parties through his advocate on 25.04.2008 and later on has come up with this complaint. It appears on perusal of the complaint allegations and the affidavit evidence of the complainant after the year 1999 he did not corresponded with Opposite parties at any time either classing allotment of a site or refund of his money and even stated that the site allotted to him has been subsequently allotted in favour of one Lakshmi on 30.11.2004, which has been refuted by the Opposite parties. But even then he having had come to know that during the year 2004 that site number 79 was allotted to Smt.Lakshmi he did not take any action of contacting Opposite parties or to file any complaint before this Forum therefore the silence of this complainant from 1999 till the filing of this complaint contributes to the inordinate delay in presenting this complaint. Thus we hold that the complaint is barred by limitation, as he has also application for not filed any condonation of delay. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on that ground.<br /> 7. Coming to the other legal point regarding maintainability of this complaint, it could be seen that the complainant himself in para 10 of his complaint and in para 8 of his affidavit evidence categorically stated that Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has cancelled the registration of the Opposite party society by his order dated 31.03.2005 and even produced a copy of that order. On perusal of these statements of the complainant and the copy of the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies of Mysore it is manifest that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies on the ground that this Society with others are not functioning at all serving the purpose for which they were established and fining that no useful purpose will be served by continuing them order for cancellation. Therefore, the Opposite party society itself came to be nullified by way of cancelling the registration on 31.03.2005 itself. The Opposite parties have also produced a letter issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society to these Opposite parties informing them of the cancellation of the registration of the society and warranted them that it is brought to his notice that they are still transacting in the name of the society and if it is continued or brought to his notice necessary legal action will be taken against them. This letter dated 04.06.2008 also make clear that Society is not at all in existence and the Opposite parties are no more the office bearers of such society. That being so, the complaint has filed this complaint against a non-existing society and the office bearers which is not maintainable and no relief could be granted to the complainant. Thus the complaint without entering into the merits of the case regarding entitlement of the complainant for allotment of site is liable to be dismissed and therefore we answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 11th July 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> (Shivakumar.J.)Member<br /> <br />