Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/1568

Sri.V.N. Chinnaiah Raj Urs, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnataka State Government D Group Employees Central Association , - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jan 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 31.08.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 06.01.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1568/2015

DATED THIS THE 6^TH JANUARY OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.V.N.Chinnaiah Raj Urs,

aged about 57 years,

S/o late V.Nanjaraj Urs,

R/at no.1765, D block,

2^nd stage, Near Amba

Bhavani Temple,

Rajajinagar,

Bengaluru-10

 

Presently R/at

no.213/49, Pipeline,

Cauvery nagar,

Kurubarahalli,

Bengaluru-79.

 

By Adv.Sri.Veerabhadraiah     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. Karnataka State Government

‘D’ Group Employees Central Association (R),

Multistoried Building,

2^nd stage, Dr.Ambedkar

Veedhi, Bengaluru-01.

Rep. by its President/Secretary

 

2. The President,

Karnataka State Government

‘D’ Group Employees Central Association (R),

Multistoried Building,

2^nd stage, Dr.Ambedkar

Veedhi, Bengaluru-01.

 

3. The Secretary,

Karnataka State Government

‘D’ Group Employees Central Association (R),

Multistoried Building,

2^nd stage, Dr.Ambedkar

Veedhi, Bengaluru-01.

 

By Adv.Sri.M.V.Balaraj

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite parties no.1 to 3 (herein after referred as Op.no.1, 2 & 3 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to execute the registered sale deed and convey the absolute right, title and ownership in site no.1636, in favour of the Complainant with compensation of Rs.1 lakh & with cost.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, the Complainant while working as ‘D’ group employee in the State Government became member of the Op.no.1 association and applied for a site in the layout proposed to be developed by the Op in survey no.24/4 of Srigandadakaval, Sunkadakatte Dhakle, Yeswanthapur hobli, Bengaluru north taluk and made payment in all Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the site. The Ops allotted site no.1636, 30^th main road, C block in sy.no.24/4. In pursuance of the allotment Complainant was put in possession of the site and issued Hakkupatra in favour of the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant made payment of certain installments to Op.no.2 & 3. The Ops informed the Complainant that the specific date for registration of document before the Sub-Registrar would be intimated in writing. The Complainant waited for several years but no information was received from the Op with regard to the date of registration of sale deed in respect of the site alloted to him. Ultimately Complainant got issued legal notice dtd.28.07.15 calling upon the Ops to get registered sale deed, but his efforts went in vain. The Complainant further has taken the contention that on the similar set of facts, the 2^nd Addl., DCDRF, Bengaluru on 26.04.07 in CC.no.3077/2006 disposed the matter, directing the Ops therein who are the Ops herein to get registered the sale deed in favour of the Complainant therein.  Hence the Complainant has sought for the direction to the Ops to execute the registered sale deed in favour of him in respect of site no.1636 situated at 30^th main road, C block, Srigandadakaval, Sunkadakatte Dhakle, Yeswanthapur hobli, Bengaluru north taluk, measuring 20x30 sq.ft.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Ops did appear before this forum and filed version stating that the Complainant is a member of Op.no.1 association and made payment of Rs.20,000/- towards the site formed in the residential layout but the Complainant failed to pay the remaining instalments due. In this context, the Ops issued several notices calling upon the Complainant to remit installments and get the registered sale deed in respect of the said site which was allotted to him, but the Complainant failed to remit installments. Hence the Ops have no other go except to issue the legal notice. Accordingly got issued the registered legal notice on 16.01.14 which was returned unserved and thereafter the Op has given one more opportunity to the Complainant, calling upon him to pay balance amount of Rs.24,450/- within 15 days from the date of paper publication and get registered the site in his favour. The paper publication has been published in Sanjevani dtd.21.02.04 through his advocate as Public Notice. Inspite of the paper publication the Complainant has not paid the balance amount and as such the Complainant has become a defaulter in paying the outstanding amount, as per the notification the allotment stands cancelled after 15 days from the date of publication of the public notice. Further Op submits that the public notice issued which clearly shows the name, allotment number, site number and the balance amount and even after issuance of the paper publication the Complainant has not come forward to pay the balance amount and to get the site registered in his favour. Hence there is no negligence on its part. Further due to default on the part of the Complainant, question of deficiency does not arise. Further Op submits that the order passed in CC.no.3077/2006 is not applicable to the present case in hand. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents Ex-A1 to A12. President of Association filed affidavit evidence and produced one document. Both filed written arguments. Perused the available materials on record. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint filed by the Complainant is in time ?
2. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
3. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Affirmative.  

Point no.2: In the Affirmative. 

Point no.3: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Before embarking on the detailed facts of this case, some of the interdictory facts are necessary.  In the present case, the Complainant has taken specific contention that the similar case has been decided by 2^nd Addl., DCDRF, Bengaluru in CC.no.3077/2006, wherein the Hon’ble forum directed the Ops therein who are the Ops herein to execute the sale deed in favour of the Complainant therein after accepting the balance consideration if any within one month from the date of communication of the said order and directed the Ops to pay cost of Rs.2,500/-. As against the said order, whether any appeal has been prepared by the Op, there are no any documents. In our view, the order passed by the 2^nd Addl forum appears to be reached its finality. The other facts which brought our notice are that, at the first instance, the present complainant had filed complaint in CC.no.2720/2013 before this forum, seeking direction to the Ops to execute registered sale deed and to convey absolute right and ownership of the said site no.1636 in his favour. On service of court notice the Ops entered appearance, filed version and contested the case. The parties led evidence. At the time of arguments stage, it was observed that prior notice was not issued to the Ops demanding execution of registered sale deed of the site. The present Complainant withdrawn the said complaint with liberty to file fresh complaint after issue of legal notice to the Ops. Thereafter the Complainant got issued the legal notice on 28.07.15 and called upon the Ops to execute the registered sale deed of the said site no.1636, measuring 20x30 sq.ft in his favour. The said legal notice duly served to the Ops and they have replied on 03.08.15 trying to blame the Complainant for not paying the site value, even though no such notice was issued to the Complainant and thereby the Ops refused to execute the registered sale deed of the site and called upon to take refund of the amounts deposited by him, which is not acceptable to the Complainant, since he has awaited for allotment of site for about 3 decades. These facts not denied by the Ops. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Complainant submits that similar matter has been already been disposed of by 2^nd Addl., forum, hence the same analogy has to be applied by invoking the doctrine of parity. In this context, we discussed the issue in question, as to whether the complaint filed by the Complainant is in time and as to whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief.

 

          8. Point no.1:  According to the case of the Complainant, once he had filed CC.no.2720/13 before this forum with regard to the similar relief as sought in the present complaint. At the time of arguing the said matter, it was noticed that before filing the complaint, no legal notice was issued. Hence the said complaint has been withdrawn by the Complainant with liberty to file fresh complaint after issuance of legal notice to the Ops.  Accordingly this present complaint has been filed by the Complainant. As to know whether the complaint filed by the Complainant is concerned, the Op never raised its objections either in the version or in the reply noticed issued by the learned counsel for the Complainant with regard to the execution of sale deed pertains to the said site alloted to the Complainant. But anyhow we placed reliance on the contents of the complaint which reveals that, the Complainant had approached many times to Ops to register the sale deed in his favour, for which there was no any proper response by the Ops. Under such circumstances, the Complainant has constrained to file earlier complaint and also later this complaint. In our considered view, the complaint filed by the Complainant is not barred by time, as the cause of action arose to the Complainant at the time of filing earlier complaint no.2720/13, which continuous till filing the present complaint. Accordingly the point no.1 is answered in the affirmative.

 

9. Point no.2: It is on admitted facts that, the Op came up with development of residential layout in sy.no.24/4, Srigandadakaval, Sunkadakatte Dhakle, Yeswanthapur hobli, Bengaluru north taluk.  The Complainant being the ‘D’ group employee became the member of the Op.no.1 association in the year 1986 by paying entry fee of Rs.5/- and share fee of Rs.100/-. In this context, he applied for site measuring 20x30 sq.ft. From the date of becoming member, the Complainant has paid periodical amount in all Rs.20,000/- as stated below:

Sl.no.	Receipt no.	Date	Amount
1	06186	14.03.1989	4,000/-
2	14992	29.06.1992	3,000/-
3	10211	20.09.1992	3,000/-
4	13263	15.03.1993	3,000/-
5	15799	30.09.1993	2,000/-
6	17541	15.03.1994	5,000/-
		Total	20,000/-

 

According to the case of the Complainant he has already paid the entire instalment to the said alloted site no.1636. In this context, he approached the Ops to get registered regular sale deed. But the Ops by one or the other pretext postponed the same. When the facts stood thus to the shock and surprise of the Complainant, the Ops issued legal notice dtd.24.07.07 alleging, the Complainant has to register the sale deed of the said site and called upon him to surrender the old hakkupathra and to obtain new possession certificate and NOC from the association. In this context, he approached the Ops and appraised the facts, but the Ops assured to look in to the matter, but never complied their promise. Issuance of the notice for the surrender of the old hakkupathra is admitted fact by the Ops. The say of the Complainant is that he has already paid an entire amount of Rs.20,000/- but nothing is to pay to get register the sale deed.

 

          10. With regard to the exact value of the said site, we have gone through the entire pleadings of the parties to the lis, wherein, either in the notice issued by the learned counsel for the Complainant or reply given by the Ops is sub-silent. At the time of issuance of the notice dtd.24.07.07 by the Ops, they informed the Complainant to surrender old hakkupathra and to obtain new possession certificate and NOC from the Op association. The learned counsel for the Complainant submits that the Op never insist the Complainant to pay an additional amount for registration of site, but insist the Complainant to surrender old hakkupathra. This fact is not disputed. Thereafter the Op had issued notice dtd.16.01.14 through registered post, calling upon the Complainant to pay balance amount of Rs.24,450/- to get registered sale deed. But the said notice was unserved. Thereafter Op has given one more opportunity to the Complainant calling upon him to pay balance amount Rs.24,450/- within 15 days by issuance of notice in the Sanjayvani newspaper dtd.21.02.04. Inspite of it the Complainant did not pay the balance amount. Hence the Complainant became defaulter in paying outstanding amount. In the instant case, the Complainant has given his address in cause title, so also in the notice issued by his counsel to the Op, which are one and the same. If at all, the notice issued by Op by registered post to the said given address, certainly it ought to have been served on the Complainant. The unserved notice cover is not produced by the Op. under such circumstances, presumption can be raised that the Ops have suppressed the material facts in respect of non-service of the notice by RPAD.

 

          11. With regard to the notice issued in Sanjayvani newspaper dtd.21.02.04 is concerned, the learned counsel for the Complainant submits that it is not a vernacular newspaper, having wide publication within vicinity of the Complainant. Further the Complainant is ‘D’ group employee, how can he expected to watch a particular notice has been issued against him in the newspaper. In this context, we find there is considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Complainant, with regard to the non-service of the notice and the contents of the notice published in the said newspaper. It is not in dispute that the Complainant is ‘D’ group employee having got meager salary in those days, become a member of Op society with a dream to get a small size of site measuring 20x30 sq.ft. In this context, he has invested his hard earned money to the tone of Rs.20,000/-. Receipt of Rs.20,000/- is not disputed by the Op.  The only say of the Op is that the Complainant is due to pay the instalments. In our considered view, no rate is fixed for the allotted site. Therefore, we are of the view that the Complainant is entitled to enforce the Ops for execution of the registered sale deed in respect of said allotted site to him on making payment of balance instalments if any. It is also noticed that the Ops never stated either in its objections or in reply notice stating that the said site is already alloted to some other persons, hence it is not in a position to allot it. Hence, we come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of Ops in not executing the registered sale deed in favour of the Complainant. Accordingly we answered the point no.2 in the affirmative.

 

12. Point no.3: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed.  

 

          2. The Ops are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the Complainant in respect of the site no.1636 situated at 30^th main road, ‘C’ block, Srigandadakaval, Sunkadakatte Dhakle, Yeshwanthapur hobli, Bengaluru north taluk, measuring 20x30 sq.ft, after accepting the balance consideration if any within six weeks from the date of this order. The Ops are further directed to pay cost of Rs.2,500/-.

    

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 06^th January 2018).

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.V.N.Chinnaiah Raju Urs, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Membership fee receipt dtd.02.01.86
Ex-A2 to A7	Site deposit receipts
Ex-A8	Possession certificate
Ex-A9	Notice dtd.24.07.07
Ex-A10	Order in CC.no.3077/2006
Ex-A11	Legal notice dtd.28.07.15
Ex-A12	Reply notice dtd.0.08.15

 

 

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.B.M.Nataraj, who being the President of Op Association was examined.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

Doc.no.1

Paper publication

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT