Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

      President

1. The complainant Sri. Anantha Shayana Iyengar has filed this complaint against opposite party Karnataka Telecom Department Employees Co-operative Society praying to direct the opposite party to allot a site measuring 30 X 40 feet and execute a Registered Sale Deed in favour of complainant in their layout named as Brahmananda Sagara located at Mysuru and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost of the proceedings of Rs.25,000/-.

2. The brief facts are that:-

The complainant was an aspirant for a site measuring 30 X 40 feet at Brahmananda Sagara layout, Mysuru developed by the opposite party and he became the member of the opposite party society bearing membership No.A-8887 and paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 27.09.2010 and Rs.1,020/- towards membership fee and Rs.68,400/- on 19.11.2010 and Rs.68,400/- on 13.12.2010 totally the complainant has paid Rs.1,97,820/- to opposite party, the opposite party assured the complainant that it would develop the layout within 18 months and execute Registered Sale Deed in respect of site measuring 30 X 40 feet.But the opposite party failed to allot site and to execute the sale deed and the complainant came to know that the opposite party executing sale deeds in favour of other members by pick and choosing the members.Therefore the complainant has got issued legal notice dated 18.09.2018 and the same was served, but no response and it is further alleged that the opposite party with an intension to post pone the issue deliberately withhold the details of the layout and thereby committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.Hence, this complaint.

3. After registration of this complaint, notice was ordered to be issued to opposite party.  In response to notice opposite party appeared through its counsels and has filed  version admitting that the complainant is the member of opposite party society Act contended that this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the above complaint as the relief claimed is only under section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Society to the jurisdictional Registrar of the society having jurisdiction to try the issues  of the complaint, on this ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed and stated that the total cost of the vacant site measuring 30X40 feet in “Brammananda Sagara”  project, Mysuru is tentatively fixed for Rs.3,25,000/-, but the complainant has paid only Rs.1,96,800/-.  The concept of forming Co-operative Society  is to protect the interest of weaker sections and it is a voluntary association of persons, whose motives is the welfare of the members.  The opposite party had already purchased the lands which is sufficient to distribute  vacant sites to its members.  In Mysore Division, 80% of the layout work already completed and awaiting for legal approval from MUDA.  The property value in the proposed layout in Brahamananda Sagar has increased due to development of Mysore city.  The Karnataka Government Registration value fixed around Rs.8,40,000/- and the open market in the same area is around Rs.15,00,000/-, the investment of Rs.3,25,000/- has earned almost average 200% for his investment.  For all these reasons prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief the same was taken as PW.1 and got marked certain documents.  Opposite party has not filed affidavit.

5. Heard the arguments of complainant counsel.  Opposite party counsel was not present and not addressed arguments on behalf of opposite party.

6. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves the alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

7.      Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative;

       Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.  Point No.1:-  It is the specific contention of the complainant that with an intention to purchase a site measuring 30X40 feet in the opposite party layout called Brahmananda Sagara layout developed by opposite party in Mysuru.  He became the member with opposite party society bearing membership No.A-8887 and paid a total sum of Rs.1,97,820/- to opposite party,  the opposite party assured to allot site and develop the layout within 18 months and execute Registered Sale Deed, but failed to allot site and to execute Registered Sale Deed.  The efforts made by the complainant to visit the opposite party went in vain, since the opposite party deliberately withhold the details  of layout and the complainant came to know that the opposite party by pick and choosing the members  executing the sale deeds in favour of other members.  Therefore he suspect the act of opposite party and got issued legal notice dated 18.09.2018 calling upon the opposite party to allot site and execute Registered Sale Deed, but no response from the opposite party.  The complainant has got marked Exhibit P.1 receipt dated 27.09.2020 issued by opposite party for having received Rs.61,020/- from the complainant towards advance amount in respect of site measuring 30X40 feet and also got marked Exhibit P.2 another receipt dated 19.11.2010 issued by opposite party for having received Rs.68,400/- from complainant and also got marked one more receipt at Exhibit P.3 dated 13.12.2010 issued by opposite party for having received Rs.68,400/- from the complainant towards site measuring 30X40, totally the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,97,820/- to opposite party, the payment of Rs.1,97,820/- made by the complainant stands established by producing Exhibit P.1 to P.3.  Exhibit P.4 is the copy of legal notice issued to opposite party calling upon the opposite party to execute Registered Sale Deed, but no response from the opposite party.

9.      When the opposite party had received a total sum of Rs.1,97,820/- to allot site measuring 30X40 feet in favour of complainant in Brahmananda Sagara layout, Mysuru developed by opposite party, it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to allot site measuring 30X40 feet and to execute Sale Deed by receiving balance sale consideration, but failed to allot site and to execute Registered Sale Deed  which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

10.      Though the opposite party in the version has contended that the relief claimed by the complainant is under section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act.  Therefore the jurisdictional Registrar of the society having jurisdiction, but this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint, on this ground only the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

11.      On this point the learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the ruling reported in 2017(1) CPR 209 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 24 A-Consumer complaint Maintainability- Even if is she is to be handled by officers of Co-operative Department under Co-operative law, jurisdiction of Consumer For a to deal with these matters is not barred and is independent of action contemplated by such officers-Provisions of the Act are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction-Consumer Fora below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction to deal with matters in hand under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

As per the afore cited respected ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission, it is crystal clear that under the Consumer Protection Act Consumer complaint even if the issue is to be handled by the officers of the Co-operative Department under the Co-operative law, the jurisdiction of the consumer fora to deal with these matters, is not barred.  Therefore the contention taken by the opposite party that this Commission has no jurisdiction, since the reliefs claimed by the complainant under section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act, therefore the jurisdictional Registrar of the Co-operative society having jurisdiction is absolutely incorrect.

12. The opposite party in the version also contended that the site measuring 30X40 feet in Brammananda Sagara project in Mysore is tentatively fixed at Rs.3,25,200/-, but the complainant has paid Rs.1,96,800/-, therefore the complaint is not maintainable.  So from the version of the opposite party it appears that the complainant is liable to pay the balance amount to opposite party for allotment of site.  In view of the opposite party failed to allot site and to execute Registered Sale Deed even though it had received Rs.1,96,800/- from the complainant, it is not only deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and also unfair trade practice on its part.  Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to allot site measuring 30X40 feet in favour of the complainant and to execute Registered Sale Deed in his favour by receiving balance consideration, if any.  Therefore, we answer point No.1 in partly in the affirmative.

13.    Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

     The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.

The opposite party is hereby directed to allot site measuring 30 X 40 feet in Brammananda Sagara layout at Mysuru and execute Registered Sale Deed in favour of complainant by receiving balance consideration, if any within 60 days from the date of this order.

And further the opposite party is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation and further the opposite party is liable to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed on 30.09.2020 to complainant and the opposite party shall pay compensation amount and cost within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the compensation of Rs.50,000/- + cost of Rs.5,000/- + further cost Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest 10% till payment.

Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 8^th October, 2021)