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 /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 228,229/09 DATED 27.08.2009<br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant in C.C-228/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant in C.C-229/2009 N. Sudharani D/o late B. Narayana Rao, No.53/1, 1st Floor, ‘OM Srinilaya’, Coconut Avenue Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560003.<br /> <br /> S.R. Subramanyam, S/o S.V. Ramakrishnan Door No.53/1, 1st Floor, Coconut Avenue Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560003.<br /> (By Sri B.S. Prashanth, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties in both cases are same The Secretary/Executive Director Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Regd. No: ARM. 3236/74-75, Dt; 23.12.1974, No.3, 4 & 5, 3rd cross, Manasara Road, Ittigegud, Mysore-570010.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. Sridhar Chakke, Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 27.06.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 17.07.2009<br /> Date of order : 27.08.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 10 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The opposite party in both the cases being common and so also the facts and contentions of the parties being the same or similar, for convenience, by this common order both the cases are being disposed off.<br /> <br /> 2. In CC.228/2009 in the complaint it is alleged that, the complainant was member of the opposite party and for allotment of site measuring 40 X 60 feet paid in all Rs.54,880/- in the year 1995-96. Up to 2000 site was not allotted, despite repeated request of the complainant. Towards betterment charges a sum of Rs.5,000/- and further a sum of Rs.1,035/- was demanded by the opposite party and that has been paid by the complainant. Till today the opposite party has not allotted the site. Hence, it is prayed to direct the opposite party to refund the amount deposited with interest to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-.<br /> <br /> 3. In CC.229/2009 the allegations almost same and it is stated now the land value has gone up and taking into consideration of present value, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is claimed.<br /> <br /> 4. In both the cases the opposite party has appeared through advocate and filed versions in detail and the substance is that, the opposite party had not assured the complainant of any allotment of site at Sathagalli and it was informed that, after layout is formed, on seniority basis site will be allotted. It is contended that, the complainants have not paid the amount in time and as such, option was given to receive that the amount, but the complainant did not came forward to receive the amount. Also it is contending that, the complainant being the defaulter, is not entitling to the relief. For these reasons, the opposite party is not liable to pay any interest. <br /> <br /> 5. To establish the facts alleged in the complaints, the respective complainants have filed their affidavits. Also they have produced certain documents. On the other hand on both the cases one Mr. Shrenika has filed affidavit for the opposite party and produced certain documents. <br /> 6. We have heard both the learned advocate for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the material on record. <br /> <br /> 7. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> 1. Whether the complainants have proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that they are entitled to the relief sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 8. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 9. Point no. 1:- From the facts, evidence and contentions of the parties absolutely there is no dispute that, the complainants are members of the housing society and towards allotment of sites then have paid the total amount of Rs.60,915/-, each.<br /> <br /> 10. The complainants contend that, despite repeated request the opposite party has not allotted the site. Admittedly no sites are allotted by the opposite party to the complainants. The opposite party contends that, the complainants did not pay the amount in time. In respect of this contention, it is relevant to note that, whether the opposite party had called upon the complainants to pay any amount and in spite of it whether the amount remained unpaid. In the affidavits, the complainants have stated they are not at all communicated by the opposite party towards payment of the amount. The opposite party has produced certain documents and the copy of the reminder to the members requesting to remit the provisional fixation of the site value. The said reminder is dated 30.09.1995 and the circular dated 30.08.1996 is placed on record. The opposite party called upon the members to remit the estimated escalated amount and in case of failure, the members loose their seniority. But the fact remains that, the complainants have paid the amount to the opposite party in the year 1995-96 and so for no site has been allotted. Second reminder Xerox copy dated 12.03.2004 is on record and towards payment of second installment time was extended up to 31.03.2004. As noted here before, in the year 1995.96 itself the complainants have paid the amount. More over as regards demand of any further amount by the opposite party from the complainants, there is no cogent evidence. At the cost of repetition though the complainants have paid the amount in the year 1995-96, in spite of laps of more than 12 years the opposite party has not allotted sites to the complainants. Under these circumstances, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complainants are entitle for refund of the amount that they have paid.<br /> <br /> 11. The complainants have claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- contending that, market value of the land has been increased etc., In the absence of any other acceptable material on record, under the circumstances, said claim cannot be accepted. However, awarding interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the payment by the complainants could meet the hands of the justice. Accordingly, our finding on the point No.1 in affirmative.<br /> 12. Point No. 2:- From the discussions made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Both the complaints are allowed partly.<br /> 2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,915/- to each of the complainants with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the respective dates of payments noted bellow till realization and that the amount shall be paid within 60 days from the date of the order.<br /> CC-228/2009<br /> Receipt No. Date of installment Amount<br /> 15550 20.12.1995 27,440<br /> 15778 23.03.1996 27,440<br /> 17799 25.07.2000 5,000<br /> 21498 30.08.2006 1,035<br /> <br /> CC-229/2009<br /> Receipt No. Date of installment Amount<br /> 21497 30.08.2006 1,035<br /> 15549 20.12.1995 27,440<br /> 15777 23.03.1996 27,440<br /> 17798 25.07.2000 5,000<br /> <br /> 3. Further, the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each of the complainants towards mental agony and other inconvenience.<br /> 4. So also the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants towards cost of the proceedings. <br /> 5. The original order shall be kept in CC-228/2009 and the Xerox copy in CC-229/2009.<br /> 6. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 27th August 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar .J)<br /> Member<br /> <br />