IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE.<br /> <br /> Dated this 25th day of November 2010<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 516-2010<br /> <br /> Present 1) Sri. T.H. Narayanagowda, President.<br /> 2) Smt. Y.V. Uma Shenoi, Member.<br /> 3) Sri. Shivakumar .J, Member.<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt.Indira.D.V., W/o Jannappa, No.A4:5, <br /> P and T Quarters, Kavala Byrapasandra, Bangalore-32.<br /> <br /> (By Sri Shivakumar, Adv.)<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Opponent President, Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society, 3,4,5, 3rd Cross, <br /> Manasara Road, Indiranagara, Mysore-10.<br /> <br /> (By Sri Sridhar Chakke, Adv.)<br /> <br /> (Order dictated by Sri. T.H.Narayana Gowda, President)<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the opponent praying for directing him to confirm the site measuring 40’ x 60’ already allotted to her as per provisional allotment order dated 21.11.1994 as per old price fixed in the year 2002 or in the alternative for directing him to allot the site of the same size in the new layout as per old price or else to refund the amount of Rs.59,000/- paid by her along with interest and compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- towards mental agony etc., <br /> <br /> <br /> 2) The case of the complainant in brief as set out in the complaint is as follows:-<br /> <br /> That the complainant is the senior member of the opponent society and she has paid the amount of Rs.59,000/- even earlier to 1999. The opponent has dragged on the matter of confirmation of the site already allotted to her as per the provisional allotment order dated 21.11.1994 or allotting any other site in the new layout till today by demanding the payment of the enhanced site value from time to time. In spite of oral and written demands made by the complainant, the opponent has not complied with her demands. Hence, she has got issued the legal notice dated 30.05.2007 to the opponent by RPAD. In spite of the same, the opponent has failed to comply with the said notice and thereby the opponent has committed the deficiency in service and liable to pay the compensation apart from other reliefs. Hence, this complaint is filed against the opponent for the reliefs sought for in the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3) On the other hand, the opponent has admitted the case of the complainant regarding the provisional allotment of the site as per the provisional allotment order dated 21.11.1994 and the payment of Rs.59,000/- towards site value etc., as true. But, the opponent has denied the other case of the complainant regarding the matter of allotment of site and the deficiency in service alleged against him as false and further contended that initially the complainant has not deposited the entire site value within the time limit fixed by the society and therefore, the earlier provisional allotment order was not confirmed. The opponent has further contended that subsequently in spite of due intimations, the complainant has not paid the enhanced site value from time to time and therefore, the opponent was unable to allot any site in the new layout. Thus, the opponent has contended that without paying the present site value as fixed by the society, the opponent was unable to meet the demands of the complainant. The opponent has also further contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is also barred by law of limitation and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. On these grounds, the opponent has urged for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> 4) After filing the version, as usual the case was posted for evidence. Thereupon, the complainant has filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of her case and closed her evidence. Thereafter, the opponent has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of his defence and closed his evidence. Hence, thereafter, heard the arguments of both the sides and the complainant’s counsel has also filed the written arguments and then posted the case for orders. <br /> <br /> 5) In view of the aforesaid contentions taken by both the parties and the arguments submitted by their advocates, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows:-<br /> <br /> 1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?<br /> 2) What Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6) Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative.<br /> Point No.2:- As per final order for the following, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7) Point No.1 :- In the complaint, though the complainant has urged for directing the opponents to allot the site as per old rates fixed by the society along with other reliefs, during the course of further arguments, the complainant has filed the written arguments along with certain documents and urged for directing the opponent to refund the amount of Rs.59,000/- paid by her along with interest within 15 days in single installment, on the ground that she is badly in need of the said amount. Hence, in view of the same, there is no need to consider the aspect of directing the opponent to confirm the site already allotted to the complainant as per the provisional allotment order dated 21.11.1994 or in the alternative to direct the opponent to allot the site in the new layout. Admittedly, the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.59,000/- to the opponent’s society even by the year 1999. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the payment of the said amount claimed by the complainant. Of course, the opponent has contended that the claim of the complainant is barred by law of limitation and therefore, the complainant has not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. But, the facts and the circumstances of the case and the material on record clearly disclose that the complainant is struggling for the allotment of site from the beginning as per old rate fixed in the year 1992. But, the opponent is dragging on the matter of allotment on the ground that the complainant has not deposited the entire amount of the site value within the time limit fixed by the society and therefore, the site was not confirmed and in view of the claiming of the site by the complainant in the new layout, the complainant is liable to pay the new price of the site as fixed by the society from time to time. But, the complainant has failed to deposit the enhanced price of the site value in spite of giving due intimations. Thus, the matter of allotment of site is not settled between the parties and therefore, the complainant has approached this Forum by filing this complaint claiming several reliefs sought for in the complaint. But, as already stated above during the course of arguments, the complainant has confined the reliefs for the refund of the amount paid by her along with interest and costs. Under these circumstances, we have no other alternative to except hold that there is no substance in the contention taken by the opponent that the complaint is barred by law of limitation. Thus, we hold that the complaint is in time and not barred by law of limitation as contended by the opponent.<br /> <br /> 8) In view of all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount of Rs.59,000/- paid by her for the allotment of the site along with reasonable rate of interest and costs. From the material on record clearly discloses that the complainant has made the payment of Rs.59,000/- in all to the opponent’s society on various dates commencing from 02.02.1993 to 31.03.1999. The major amount was paid by the complainant to the said society even by 21.11.1994. Thus, the complainant has paid the said amounts during the period of 6 years commencing from 1993 to 1999 and therefore, we feel it just and reasonable to fix the last date of payment that is from 31.03.1999 for awarding the interest on the said amount. During the year 1999, the banking rate of interest was more than 15% p.a.. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the years of payments made by the complainant including the present banking rate of interest, we feel it just and reasonable to award the interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the amount of Rs.59,000/- from the year 1999 till the date of payment and cost of Rs.3,000/-. In view of awarding the interest at the rate of 15% p.a., no compensation is awarded. Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 partly in the affirmative. <br /> <br /> 9) Point No.2:- In view of the reasons and the findings recorded on the point No.1, we hold that the complaint deserves to be allowed in part as stated above, in the ends of justice. Hence in the final result, we proceed to pass the following,<br /> :: O R D E R ::<br /> <br /> The complaint is partly allowed and the opponent is directed to refund the amount of Rs.59,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a from 31.03.1999 till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> The opponent is also directed to pay the cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> All the aforesaid amounts shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 25th day of November 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member. Member. President.<br /> <br /> S.R.L<br />