BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JUNE, 2023

APPEAL NO.1124/2022

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER

M/s. Karnataka Telecom Department

Employees Co-Operative Society,

Amims Castel No.706, 1^st Floor,

Near CBI Road,                                                    … Appellant/s

HMT Layout, RT Nagar post,

Bengaluru-560 032

Represented by its President/Secretary

Sri.V.J.K.Bakthavakachalam

S/o late Sri.Kannaiah Naidu.V

(By Sri.D.S.Lokesh, Advocate)

                                          -Versus-

Sri.M.V.Gopal S/o V.Swamy,

Aged about 58 year,                                            ... Respondent/s

R/at No.001, Shree Enclave,

1^st Cross, CR Layout, JP Nagar,

1^st Phase, Bengaluru-560 078

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Opposite Party/Appellant preferred this appeal against the order passed by the 3^rd Addl. Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru dated 8-4-2022 in Complaint No.882/2019 which directed this Appellant to allot a site from same layout measuring 60X40 ft. and execute the sale deed. Failing which, the Opposite Party is liable to return the total amount paid excluding membership fee with interest @ 9% p.a. from 12-12-2007 till realization and Rs.25,000/- litigation expenses and submits that the complainant become a member of the Opposite Party society and applied for allotment of site measuring 60X40ft and paid a sum of Rs.3,93,600/-. After payment of the said amount, the complainant requested for allotment of site, but the Opposite Party deliberately not allotted the site and postpone the allotment of site for the one or the other reason. The complainant made several representations to allot the site, but the Opposite Party kept quiet without considering the request made by the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant issued legal notice and called upon the Opposite Party to allot the site and even in spite of legal notice the Opposite Party not replied the legal notice. Subsequently, the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and sought for allotment of site.  

2. After trial, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to allot a site along with compensation and litigation expenses. In fact, the complainant become the member for allotment of site measuring 60X40ft in the Opposite Party’s layout by name “Atmananda Sagar” and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,93,600/- to the Opposite Party society. The Opposite Party assured to develop the layout and to allot the site and execute registered the sale deed.  The complainant approached the Opposite Party society and demanded for allotment of site. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,93,600/- and he has not paid the total sital value of the site to the appellant society. The complainant has to pay the balance sale consideration amount to the appellant society. The appellant society has allotted the site on the basis of seniority of the member as on first cum first service. The delay in formation of the layout was beyond its control and also the complainant has not paid the entire sale consideration. The appellant society is ready to allot and register the site to the complainant, once the complainants make the balance payment. The formation of the site is time consuming and requires approval from various Government Authorities. The delay in formation of the sites is not due to any intentional, it is only due to approval from the side of authorities. The appellant assured to allot the site to the complainant on payment of balance sale consideration. The complainant is not come forward to the pay the said amount. In spite of that, he had filed false complaint alleging deficiency in service. The District Commission without consider the said defence has allowed the complaint and directed this Opposite Party to allot the site along with compensation and litigation expenses. In fact they ready to allot the site, hence prayed for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.           

3. Heard.

4. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order passed by the District consumer Commission, it is noticed that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,93,600/-. The complainant constrained to file the complaint for allotment and registration of the site. This appellant had not shown any material to show that subsequent layouts are developed and ready for registration. In the absence of such materials, we cannot believe the arguments submitted by the learned advocate for appellant. When the layout was developed in spite of sufficient time taken, the complainant is entitled to allot the site. The District Commission after considering the evidence had directed this appellant to allot and register the site in the complainant’s favour within 30 days and if they fail, they have directed to return the total paid amount along member fee and litigation expenses. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. We do not find any merits in the appeal; as such the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the District Commission is confirmed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:      

O R D E R

The Appeal No.1124/2022 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.

The impugned order 8-4-2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysuru in CC.Nos.882/2019 is confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

Member                                                         Judicial Member