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. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 154/08 DATED 12-08-2008<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainants 1. N.R.Ramaswamy, Retd. Sr.Health Inspector, No.1967, Near Market Chamalapura Main Road, Nanjangud Town, Mysore District.<br /> 2. Smt.B.S.Vasanthamma, No.1036/13AF 7/1, 1st Main Road, General Hospital Road, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore.<br /> 3. Lokeshamurthy, No.178, 1st Stage, 1st Phase, Gayathripuram, Myosre-19.<br /> 4. S.Nagaraju, No.LIG, 41, HUDCO 1st Stage, New Kantharaj Urs Road, (Near Akshya Bandar), Kuvempunagar, Myosre-23.<br /> 5. H.B.Swamy, MIG 60, 3rd Stage, KHB, Kuvempunagar, Myosre-570023.<br /> 6. C.R.Shankara, No.105/F, N Block, Kuvempunagar, KSRTC Bus Depot, Myosre-23.<br /> 7. Smt.B.B.Kalamma, No.301, New Kantharaj Urs Road, Behind Akshaya Bandar, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-23.<br /> 8. B.S.Krishna, No.MIG-4, 2nd Main, 2nd Cross, Sharada Devi Nagara, Mysore.<br /> 9. B.V.Shobavathi, No.2012, Kodagahally Nilaya, B.M.Sreenagara, Metagalli, Mysore.<br /> 10. Thimma Shetty, Rt. Pharmacist, Rama Badavani Extension), Saraguru, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysore District.<br /> 11. Neelakantappa, No.3768, 13th Cross, Tilaka Nagara, Mysore.<br /> 12. Dr.C.R.Malathi, No.13, 12th Block, SDM Colony, Sriramapura, Mysore.<br /> 13. Smt.Bhagyalakshmi, LIG 163, Anugraha Vivekananda Nagara, Mysore-23.<br /> 14. M.D.Nanjundaswamy, Retd. Sr.Health Inspector, NO.4528, 8th Cross, 12th Main, G Block, Kanakadasa Nagar, 9Dattagalli 3rd Stage), Near Adithya Circle, Mysore.<br /> 15. H.B.Sudharshan, LIG, 131, 2nd Stage, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-23.<br /> 16. K.S.Bhojaraj, No.MIG 9, Bhogadi 2nd Stage (South), Myosre.<br /> 17. M.Mahadevaswamy, No.710/B, 9th Main Road, 2nd Cross, Bank Colony, D Block, J.P.Nagar, Mysore.<br /> 18. Smt.Kamalamma, Retd. Sri.Health (F), No.178, 1st Stage, 1st Phase, Gayathripuram, Mysore-19.<br /> 19. Smt.M.M.D’souza, No.5, 4th Cross, Tank Road, N.R.Mohalla, Myosre.<br /> (By Sri.Y.H.Ramachandra., Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Smt.Kokila, Paid Secretary,<br /> 2. B.Naganna, President,Both are Paid Secretary and President in Health and Family Welfare Department Employee’s House Construction Sahakara Sangha Ltd., Old Exhibition Building, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.A.S.N., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 29.05.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 23.06.2008<br /> Date of order : 12.08.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 19 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainants have come up with this complaint against the Opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with their grievance that the Opposite party is a registered Housing Co-operative Society, that they are all its members, that Opposite parties have allotted sites to all of them in Devanur Village layout and that the first complainant has been allotted site No.127 measuring 30’ x 40’ by collecting Rs.40,000/-, but the Opposite parties have collected Rs.4,000/- in excess towards Kaveri Water prorata and also Rs.1,500/- towards Khata fee and executed registered deed on 19.06.2000. That the second complainant has been allotted site No.2 measuring 72’ x 38’ for Rs.91,500/- and executed registered deed on 30.09.2000. That the third complainant is an allottee of site No.91, measuring 61’ + 60’/2 East to West and North to Sought 43’ + 52.5’/2 and collected Rs.1,39,700/- and executed registered deed on 29.03.2000. Fourth complainant is an allottee of site No.72 measuring 68’ + 60.75’/2 and North to South 50’ + 34’/2 for Rs.60,670/- and executed registered deed on 29.03.2000. Fifth complainant is an allottee of site no.164 measuring 30’ x 40’ for Rs.40,000/- and executed document on 30.06.2000. Sixth complainant is an allottee of site No.213 measuring 30’ x 40’ for Rs.40,000/- and Opposite parties have collected Rs.4,000/- in excess towards Kavery Water prorate. Seventh complainant is an allottee of site No.42 measuring 30’ x 40’ for Rs.40,000/- and the Opposite parties have illegally collected Rs.4,000/- in excess and executed registered deed on 30.08.2000. The eight complainant is allotted site No.130 for Rs.66,900/- and executed deed dated 29.03.2000. Ninth complainant is an allottee of site No.226 for Rs.40,000/- and executed deed on 30.08.2000. Tenth complainant has been allotted site No.207 for Rs.40,000/- measuring 30’ x 40’ and registered deed dated 28.03.2001. Eleventh complainant is an allottee of site No.17 measuring 40’ x 60’ for Rs.80,000/- under registered deed dated 28.02.2001. Twelth complainant is an allottee of site No.79 measuring 40’ x 60’ for Rs.80,000/- under registered deed dated 28.03.2001. Complainant no.13 is an allottee of site No.155 measuring 30’ x 40’ for Rs.40,000/- and that the Opposite parties have collected Rs.4,000/- in excess illegally towards Kavery water prorata. Complainant no.14 has been allotted site No.48 measuring 40’ x 60’ for Rs.80,000/- under registered deed dated 30.08.2000 and the Opposite parties have illegally collected Rs.8,000/- towards kavery water supply. Complainant NO.15 is an allottee of site No.39 measuring 30’ x 40’ for Rs.40,000/- under registered deed dated 28.03.2001. Sixteenth complainant has been allotted site No.156 measuring 30’ x 40’ for Rs.40,000/- and registered deed dated 19.06.2000 and Opposite parties have illegally collected Rs.4,000/- from him. Seventeenth complainant is an allottee of site No.214 measuring 30’ x 40’ for Rs.40,000/- under registered deed dated 19.06.2007. Complainant No.18 is an allottee of site No.135 measuring 26’ x 21’ by collecting Rs.70,000/-, but the value of the site is mentioned in the registered deed as Rs.68,000/- and complainant No.19 is an allottee of site No.83 measuring 60’ x 40’ for amount of Rs.80,000/- and the Opposite parties have collected Rs.8,000/- excessively. The complainants further in their complaint have contended that the Opposite parties are illegally collecting excess amount without adequate reasons, which is illegal that they are all innocent government employees are forced to pay excess sital value, they got issued notices to the Opposite parties despite that the Opposite parties have issued final notices for paying the excess amount, though the Opposite parties cannot escalate the cost of the site. That the Opposite parties have not supplied them copy of the resolution dated 28.07.2007 but they have directed them to pay the difference amount to MUDA directly as such the Opposite parties cannot collect any excess amount from them. The complainants further attributing malice to the Opposite parties have alleged that Opposite parties have managed of the affairs of the society and thus have prayed for a direction to the Opposite parties not to collect as per resolution passed on 28.07.2007 and to declare that resolution as null and void. To order a competent authority to reaudit since from 86-87 to upto date and then after that report the misused amount of Sangha i.e. illegal gain amount by the Opposite parties, be paid back to sangha with exemplary cost. Further to order and direct the Opposite parties to conduct early Special General Body Meeting to disclose about misuse of sangha’s amount as per the act and also to direct the Opposite parties not to take any further steps to cancel their sites as mentioned in the notices of the Opposite parties.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties have filed their version contending that complaint is not maintainable and the relief sought by the complainants cannot be granted by this Forum and have stated that the complainants are not consumers under the Act and therefore, the complaint is not sustainable. Admitting that the Opposite parties is a registered Co-operative Society stated that complainants being its members can raise a dispute under section 70 of the Act and therefore this Forum cannot exercise its powers under the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint do not disclose any deficiency in the service rendered by Opposite parties and have stated that complainants are allotted sites, allotment letter, possession certification and the lease cum sale agreement are executed in favour of the allottees by reserving the societies rights to claim escalation charges and that the price that was intimated to the allottees was only tentative price and not the final one. Therefore, the complainants are liable to pay the escalated cost of the site as per the final notice dated 02.05.2008. The Opposite parties further narrating the delay in formation of the layout because of some dispute between them and developer and Kaveri water prorata which is payable by the members to the Mysore Urban Development Authority have stated the complainants are liable to pay escalated charges have by further denying the allegations of the complainants regarding excess collection have prayed for dismissal of the complaint by further contending that resolution passed on 28.07.2007 has been informed to all the members and instructions were given to the complainants and other members to pay the kaveri water prorata charges to Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore.<br /> 3. During the course of enquiry into the complaint, the 6th complainant has filed a detailed affidavit evidence re producing what they have stated in their complaint. The other complainants have filed their affidavit evidence adopting the affidavit evidence of 6th complainant, as their affidavit evidence also. On behalf of Opposite parties Naganna, the second Opposite party has filed his affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their version. The counsel for the complainants have filed written arguments. Heard the counsel for the Opposite parties. Both parties have produced Xerox copies of certain documents, among them copies of resolution passed by Opposite parties, lease cum sale deed executed by them in favour of the complainants and some other members and also the notice dated 28.08.2007 issued by the Opposite parties to its members including the complainants for payment of the balance sital value.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainants prove that the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in demanding for payment of escalation costs of the site by virtue of a resolution passed on 28.07.2007?<br /> 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for relief sought for?<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:- As found from the complaint allegations, the documents produced by the complainants and the exhaustive written arguments filed by the counsel for the complainants, the complainants have canvassed various aspects of the Opposite party Housing Co-operative Society touching its administration and day to day activities. Even as seen from the relief sought for by the complainants in the complaint, the complainants have sought the relief of declaring a resolution of Opposite parties dated 28.07.2007 as null and void and to direct the competent authority to get the Opposite parties accounts for the year 86-87 reaudited to call a Special General Body Meeting and with other similar reliefs. This Forum exercising its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act cannot go into the issue touching the administration of the Opposite party society and therefore the complaint for the grant of the relief as prayed is not at all maintainable. However, the counsel representing the complainants in the course of arguments submitted that the Opposite parties after allotment of sites in favour of the complainants have executed lease cum sale agreement after fixing the sital value, but the Opposite parties have collected excess sital value and have even passed resolution dated 28.07.2007 demanding further escalation cost of the sites, which cannot be done and therefore submitted to set aside the resolution dated 28.07.2007 as null and void. Whereas the counsel representing the Opposite parties argued that sites were allotted in favour of the complainants by fixing the cost of the sites tentatively with a condition that after the completion of the layout and after considering payments payable to the local bodies, the rates will be revised for which the allottees including the complainants are liable to pay the escalation costs and thereby he relied upon notices sent to the allottees including the complainants on 28.08.2007 fixing cost of the sites Rs.717 per square yard and stated that in that notice itself it is made clear that after taking into consideration the amount already paid by the complainants they were called upon to pay the balance amount and in this regard, the counsel for the Opposite parties also invited our attention to several letters, the Opposite parties received from Mysore Urban Development Authority with demand regarding payment of water supply and severage facilities dated 27.07.2007, 29.05.2007 and 27.07.2007 and also copy of the resolution passed by the Opposite parties determining the cost of the sites taking into consideration, the amounts paid to the developer of the layout and also payable to local bodies towards water supply and severage connections. The counsel for the complainant has not disputed the fact that the lease cum sale agreements were executed in favour of the complainants fixing the sital value temporarily with a liability on the allottees to pay the escalation charges after the cost of the sites are fixed finally, taking into consideration the other charges. Further, the counsel for the complainants has also not disputed the genuineness of the claim made by MUDA for payment towards water supply and severage connections to the layout. Therefore, on consideration of all these materials placed before us, it cannot be said that the Opposite parties had fixed the final cost of the sites when they allotted sites to the complainants and they have no authority to revise the rates after taking into consideration the subsequent development charges they have incurred and their liability to pay certain amounts to the local bodies. Therefore, we find no merits in the contentions of the complainants. The Opposite parties after passing a resolution on 28.07.2007 considering the progress of layout work done and also the expenditure that they would incur for the completion of balancing work fixed the sital value at 717 per sq. yard and they have informed all the members of the same by their notices dated 28.08.2007 requesting the other members and these complainants to pay the balance sital value after deducting the amount already paid by them. The complainants have not made out as how this resolution of the Opposite parties is either illegal or null and void. The complainants have not disputed that when sites were allotted to them, the layout developmental work had not yet been completed and sites were allotted to them subject to the revision of the sital value. That being so there is no merits in this complainants in questioning the correctness of the resolution passed and the notice issued on the strength of that resolution demanding payment of balance sital value. Even otherwise, the complainants have failed to convince us as how they are made to pay the excess sital value as contended by them. Even otherwise, as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in number of decisions the Forums cannot decide the correctness of the value of the sites fixed by the societies and held that District Forums cannot enter into the pricing policy of the Opposite parties. Therefore, the relief claimed by the complainants cannot be granted and we hold that the complaint is devoid of merits and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. With the result 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 12th August 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)Member<br /> <br /> <br />