IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - 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 104-2010 DATED 01.06.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant M.V.S.Raju, No.654, E and F Block, Kugubande Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-570032.<br /> <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party President / Secretary,<br /> Gnanaganga Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, No.365, 10th Main Road, C Block, J.P.Nagar, Mysore-570008.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. D.S.Shivaprakash, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 29.03.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 13.04.2010<br /> Date of order : 01.06.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 18 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Alleging deficiency in service of allotting house site in spite of payment of the entire price, the complainant has filed the complaint, seeking direction to allot a site measuring 30’ x 40’ in the first stage. <br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party in the version contended that, in view of the provisions of section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer. Secondly, it is contended that, complainant applied for allotment of site in the second stage and not in the first stage. In the General Body Meeting by the Resolution dated 30.03.2008 price was revised from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and if balance amount is paid, site will be allotted in the second stage. Also, it is contended that, the complainant cannot challenge the price fixed by the society.<br /> <br /> 3. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. Secretary of the opposite party society has filed his affidavit and certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments of the complainant in person and the learned advocate for the opposite party. So also, we have perused the entire record.<br /> <br /> 4. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The fact that, the complainant became member of the opposite party housing society, is admitted. Further, admitted fact is that, towards allotment of site measuring 30 x 40’, the complainant paid Rs.9,000/- on 14.05.2008, Rs.3,000/- on 02.06.1998, Rs.12,000/- on 12.02.1999, Rs.12,0000/- on 04.03.2001, Rs. 12,000/- on 03.10.2001, Rs.3,000/- on 04.11.2003 and Rs.14,000/- Rs.23.10.2005, in all Rs.65,000/-. Initially price of the site was fixed at Rs.48,000/- and later it was revised to Rs.65,000/-. Within stipulated time, the complainant has paid the entire amount.<br /> <br /> 7. The main dispute to be considered is, whether the complainant applied for allotment of site in the first stage, as he has claimed or in the second stage, as contended by the opposite party. According to the complainant, he has paid the amount for allotment of site in the first stage, whereas, the opposite party society denying it, contend that, said amount has been paid for allotment of site in the second stage.<br /> <br /> 8. From the documents of the society itself, the contention taken that, the complainant paid the amount for allotment of site in the second stage, is falsified. In this regard, amongst other documents and evidence, the intimation letter-E dated 23.04.2008 may be considered. To it’s members, this letter has been written by the Secretary of the opposite party society, wherein it is stated that, in the General Body Meeting dated 30..03.2008, which was called to fix the price of the site in Srinagar, 2nd Stage. In this letter, the price in respect of site measuring 30 x 40’ has been revised to Rs.1,00,000/-. From this and other documents on record of the opposite party society itself, the second stage as contended by the opposite party society is at “Srinagar”. The copy of the appeal of the opposite party Secretary is produced by the complainant at Sr.No.1. In the title of the appeal, it is mentioned as second stage, but reading the said appeal of the society, as stated therein, second stage referred to therein is “adjacent” to first stage. In the first stage, there was plan to allot sites to 750 members. In the adjacent land plan was to form 300 sites. Thus, considering this letter or appeal of the opposite party society, it is clear that, the second stage stated therein is “adjacent” to the first stage. This fact is substantiated by the letter of the opposite party dated 13.10.2003, produced by the complainant at Sr.No.5. In this letter also, there is specific mention that, “adjacent” to first stage in an area, approximately 20 acres, for 2nd stage, roads have been formed, so also drainage works is at completion stage. Hence, what is established from this letter is, “adjacent” to first stage, second stage layout has been formed by the opposite party society in an area approximately measuring 20 acres. <br /> <br /> 9. From the letter dated 01.01.1999 of the opposite party society, it is found that for the 2nd stage, to acquire land measuring 47 acres, agreement has been entered into. In the letter dated 01.12.2000, there is further mention that, for 2nd stage, MUDA has issued no objection certificate for the land measuring about 52.10 acres. Considering these and other documents and the material on record, it is clear that, the adjacent to the first stage opposite party society has formed layout, in the area approximately measuring 20 acres and the proposed number of sites were 300. One more layout has been formed by the opposite party society in an area measuring 47/52 acres.<br /> <br /> 10. On keen scrutiny and observation made, the document and the evidence on record disclose, initially, the opposite party society referred as “2nd stage” to the layout formed in an area, approximately 20 acres, which is situated adjacent to the first state itself. Subsequently, formation of one more layout was undertaken by the opposite party society and that is called as “second stage”.<br /> <br /> 11. It is further relevant to note, the letter of the opposite party secretary addressed to the complainant produced at Sr.No.4, in which no date is mentioned, but there are postal seals with the date 03.11.2001. In this letter addressed to the complainant, in the year 2001 itself, there is mention that, certain sites of different measurement were available for allotment and the 80 sites measuring 30 x 40’ were available and on payment of Rs.15,000/-, members can get the site. Thereafter, as noted above, opposite party society wrote another letter to the complainant dated 13.10.2003, wherein the approximate price of the site is mentioned as Rs.65,000/- and the amount so far paid by the complainant mentioned as Rs.48,000/- and the amount to be paid is Rs.3,000/-. As could be seen from the copy of the passbook issued by the opposite party society, there is mention that, on 13.10.2003 the complainant has paid Rs.3,000/-. However, the opposite party society instead of allotting the site to the complainant who had paid the entire amount as mentioned in the said letter, sent a letter noted here before dated 23.04.2008 stating that, revised price of the site is Rs.1,00,000/- and already the complainant has paid in all Rs.65,000/- and amount payable is Rs.35,000/-. Here lies concealment of the certain facts by the opposite party society. As noted earlier, in fact, the complainant paid the amount from time to time as demanded by the opposite party society in respect of site measuring 30 x 40’ in the layout formed adjacent to the first stage. But, from the subsequent letters, send by the opposite party society, the “second stage” referred to is at “Srinagar”. It is quite different. It is submitted by the complainant that, the layout at Srinagar is far away from the first stage. This fact is not disputed by the opposite party society.<br /> <br /> 12. The written arguments submitted by the learned advocate for the opposite party particularly at paragraph 8 may be looked into. In this written arguments, there is mention that, in the land in which first stage layout was formed, in the sites measuring 30 x 40’ dimension were converted into 30 x 50’ to be allotted to the members who were enrolled in the first stage. To substantiate this fact, no documents are produced by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 13. All along the opposite party has contended that, it’s activities are transparent and till now, society has allotted in all 1050 sites to the members and allotting sites to remaining members is in progress. It is specifically stated in the version that, the complainant had submitted application for allotment of site in 2nd stage. Firstly, the opposite party society has not produced the said application and secondly, to substantiate that fact, other available documents also are not produced. If really all activities of the opposite party society as contended arey transparent, it could have produced each and every documents to substantiate the contention that in fact, the complainant applied for site in the 2nd stage at Srinagar. For non-production of the documents in it’s custody or possession, opposite party society has not assigned any reasons. Considering the facts and the material on record noted here before, in fact it is made out by the complainant that, he applied for site in the layout formed in an area measuring 20 acres situated adjacent to the first stage. <br /> <br /> 14. Hence, we are of the opinion that, in fact the complainant applied for allotment of site in the layout formed by the opposite party society in an area measuring 20 acres adjacent to first stage let it be called as second stage or part of the first stage. The opposite party society has miserably failed to substantiate it’s contention that, complainant had applied for allotment of site in the layout formed at Srinagar. Let it be called as 2nd stage or otherwise.<br /> <br /> 15. The opposite party society has taken contention in the version that, in view of section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and that the complainant is not a consumer. We feel it not necessary to make detail discussion on this point, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. <br /> 16. One more contention taken by the opposite party is that, it has discretion to fix price of the site. It appears in contending so, the opposite party intend to put forth that this Forum cannot interfere in the intimation to the members regarding payment of revised price at Rs.1,00,000/-. We fully agree so far concerned to the aspect that, this Forum cannot fix the price of the site and it is for the society. But, what is relevant and important to be take a note of in the present case is, no fixing of the price of the site, or consideration of legality and validity of the same is involved. In the case on hand, at the cost of repetition, complainant paid amount for allotment of site in the layout formed measuring 20 acres adjacent to the first stage and initially, price was fixed at Rs.48,000/- and later, it was enhanced to Rs.65,000/- and that amount has been admittedly paid by the complainant. Contention of the opposite party society could have been appreciated if the claim of the complainant was in respect of the site in the second stage situated at Srinagar. That is not the case of the complainant. Under the circumstances, we found no substance in the contention of the opposite party on the point.<br /> <br /> 17. The complainant claims that, nearly 12 years back, he made initial payment of the first installment as per the direction of the opposite party, then in the year 1999 2nd installment, and in the year 2001 3rd and 4th installments. Thus, nearly 9 years back entire price of the site fixed by the opposite party society has been paid by the complainant. It is submitted by the complainant that, even though he paid the amount nearly 9 years back, ignoring his seniority opposite party has allotted a sites to other members. In the version, opposite party has stated that, it has allotted sites 1050 members. Who are all those members and when said members paid the amount and when sites were allotted, is not explained by the opposite party society. Complainant paid the value of the site fixed by the opposite party society as and when demanded, even the complainant enhanced price also. Under the circumstances, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party society, is established.<br /> <br /> 18. Not only that, the complainant in the year 2001 itself paid the entire price of the site that was fixed, he further paid revised or enhanced price. No site was allotted. The opposite party society twisting the facts is now contending that, the price has been further revised and complainant shall have to pay Rs.35,000/- for allotment of site in the 2nd stage at Srinagar. Firstly, as considered as here before complainant has not applied for site and paid amount in respect of site in the second stage situated at Srinagar. It is stated that, if the complainant had kept the said amount in FD or NSC by this time, it could have become double for the first 6 years and now, more than half of the said double amount. Taking into consideration of the fact that, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble State Commission have held to award interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and further, taking into consideration of the fact, the maturity value if the amount was invested in the NSC during the year 1998, the submission made by the complainant shall have to believed and accepted. Taking into consideration of this fact, in addition to the fact that ignoring the seniority of the complainant the opposite party society has allotted site to several members, we though it fit to award substantial compensation to the complainant, but the complainant ahs not claimed any compensation. <br /> <br /> 19. Accordingly we answer the point in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 20. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party society is hereby directed to allot a site measuring 30 x 40’ to the complainant in the layout formed by it in an area approximately measuring 20 acres adjacent to the first stage and execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant, within a month from the date of this order.<br /> 3. The complainant shall bear the stamp duty and registration charges.<br /> 4. The opposite party society shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. 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 1st June 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />