NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/357/2010

SOUTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.S. HEMALATHA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. C.B. GURU RAJ

10 Feb 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 357 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/11/2009 in Appeal No. 2837/2009 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. SOUTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.House Building Societty Limited., Mysore (North) Railway Officers, Irwin RoadMysore - 570001 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M.S. HEMALATHAR/at No. 297, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main, Behind Ganapathi Temple, K.D. Circle, Vijaynagar, II StageMysore ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 10 Feb 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. It is a case where a corner site no.352 was allotted in favour of the husband of the Respondent, Hemlata and the entire amount has been paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner. Subsequently it was cancelled and allotted to another person which is next in the seniority list on the ground that certain amount needs to be paid was not paid by the Respondent. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that a letter dated 20.5.2006 was sent to be Respondent for the payment to be made before the date mentioned therein or else the allotment will be cancelled. This letter returned back unserved as absent. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that husband of the Respondent failed to pay the balance amount and hence the allotment was cancelled. It is also contended that change of address is not intimated to them and hence they were not aware of the current address of the Petitioner. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed as under:- 1. The complaint is allowed. 2. The Opposite Party is hereby directed to executed the registered sale deed in favour of the Complainant in respect of site No.352 measuirng 40 x 60 feet situated at Sharadhanagar, Railway layout, Bogadhi, Mysore, in accordance with law within 60 days from the date of this order. 3. The Complainant shall pay sum of Rs.20,130/- to the Opposite Party within the month from the date of this order. The appeal filed by the Petitioner is also dismissed by the State Commission. In the revision petition Learned Counsel submitted that in another developed site, they would ensure that the Respondent get some allotment which to take perhaps one year time. He also submitted that they would not asked for any further amount from the Respondent and hence the Petition be allowed on this ground as stated. In my view, the grounds taken in this revision petition are not justified for the following reasons. 1. The Respondent is a widow. 2. The Respondent has been working with the bank. If the Petitioner failed to deliver the letter to her old address, they could have easily served on her at the Bank’s address. 3. Even after approaching the Petitioner requesting them to execute the sale deed in her favour, her request was unheard by the Petitioner. 4. Further, the District Forum also observed that there was tempering by inserting a sentence in the Resolution passed by the Appellant Society so that the site allotted to the Respondent could be given to another person which is an unfair trade practice. In my view, both fora below have gone through the evidence and came to the right conclusion in allowing the complaint and I have no reasons to interfere with the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOPRESIDING MEMBER