THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 949/2014
M/s Madhuvana House Building
Co-Operative Society Limited,
Rep. by its Asst. Secretary,
Mr.Shrenika M.V.,
Having registered office at 41, 42
Vani Vilas Market Building,
Agrahara, Mysore-570 004.
….Appellant/s.
(By Shri/Smt. B.S.Prashanth, Adv.,)
-Versus-
Malathi K.V. W/o Prakash,
Residing at No.8/B, 3rd Main Road,
Sarvajanika Hostel Road,
Vidyaranyapuram,
Mysore-570 008.
……….. Respondent/s
(By Sri/Smt H.M.R.., Adv.,)
:ORDERS:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.622/2010 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Commission, Mysore dated:07.07.2014, wherein the District Commission directed him to register the site in favour of the complainant along with payment of Rs.500/- per day till handing over the possession certificate and also payment of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation andRs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service in not registering site in his favour in spite of allotment made to him after payment of the value of the site. Initially, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission was dismissed, against which, the complainant preferred the appeal in appeal No.1788/2012 and after hearing this Commission has remanded back the case to took up the complaint and to dispose of the same afresh. After remand, the District Commission allowed the complaint holding that the Opposite Parties have rendered deficiency in service in not registering the allotted site measuring (24+56)/2X60 and directed them to register the site in favour of the complainant along with other directions.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party preferred this appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments from both sides.
5. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the complainant had become a member of the said Opposite Party/Society in order to obtain a site and accordingly he applied for a site after payment of the required amounts and thereafter the Opposite Party issued an allotment letter to the complainant stating that the complainant was allotted site No.32 at Srirampura Village measuring (24+56)2X60 feet But after allotment, the Opposite Parties have not registered the site in his favour, for which the complainant preferred a complaint before the District Commission and at the time of trial, the complainant had took a notice to bring the officials of the Society to give evidence with respect to the payment and to produce the document with regard to the payment made by the complainant. In spite of service of notice, any officials of the Opposite Party were attended the Commission to give evidence to show whether the complainant had paid the entire consideration amount or not. At the same time, the Opposite Party In the absence of such evidence, the District Commission drawn an adverse inference and considered that the complainant had paid the entire consideration towards site bearing No.32 measuring (24+56)2X60 feet at Srirampura Village, Mysore. Whereas the learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the complainant had not at all paid the amount towards purchase of the site, but had not given any answer with respect to the allotment letter and during the course of arguments, he suggested to allot the site in the new layout which is going to be formed by Opposite Party No.1 at Yedahalli Village if the respondent is going to pay the cost of the site.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent had vehemently argued that as per Section 29(g) of Karnataka Co-Operative Society’s Act, it is the Society should have appoint Chief Executive to the Society to take custody of the entire documents belonging to the Society, whereas the Society has violated the said provisions of the Co-Operative Society and not kept any documents to show that the complainant had paid the entire consideration amount towards the site. Even they have tried to bring the officials of the Opposite Party/Society to establish the payment made by the complainant, in spite of that, they have not appeared. Hence, submits the Opposite Party intentionally not registered the site in order to gain profit. The said fact is admitted by the appellant and the learned counsel for appellant submits that the site was sold to some other person and offered for allotment of site in a new layout. This goes to show that the appellants rendered a deficiency in service in not registering the site in favour of complainant in spite of allotment in his favour after receipt of the entire consideration amount towards site.
7. We are of the opinion that if the complainant had purchased the site as and when it was allotted it would have fetch the value to the tune of Rs.5,500-6,000 per Sq.Ft. Due to non registration of the site the complainant suffered a loss. It is observed that the District Commission ordered for allotment of site No.32 measuring (24+56)2X60 Ft., but the said site is no more in the hands of Opposite Party/Society, because they sold it for some other third person for profit. Therefore, the impugned order requires modification. Hence, it is just and proper to direct the appellants to pay Rs.4,500/- per sq.ft. towards site measuring (24+56)2X60 feet to the complainant. It is also just and proper to direct the appellant to register the site in the newly formed layout at Yedahalli, Mysore by receiving prevailing rate at the new layout form the complainant. The complainant is also liable for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for unfair trade practice/deficiency in service. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed with cost.
The impugned order passed by the District Commission is modified as under:-
The appellant is directed to pay Rs.4,500/- per Sq.Ft for the site No.32 measuring (24+56)2X60 feet along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards cost.
The Opposite Party is directed to comply the above order within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to initiate recovery proceedings as per the C.P. Act.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission to pay the same to the respondent/complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
