BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2023
APPEAL NO.148/2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER
1. Karnataka Telecom Department
Employees Co-Operative Society
Amims Castel No.706, 1st Floor
CBI Road, HMT Layout, … Appellant/s
RT Nagar post, Bengaluru-560 032
Rept. By its President
Sri.V.J.K.Bakthavakchalam
S/o late Sri.Kannaiah Naidu.V,
2. Karnataka Telecom Department
Employees Co-Operative Society
Amims Castel No.706, 1st Floor
CBI Road, HMT Layout,
RT Nagar post, Bengaluru-560 032
Rept. By its Secretary
Sri.B.S.Manjunath
(By Sri.D.S.Lokesh, Advocate)
-Versus-
Sri.Maruthy Hiriyur Vaikuntachar,
S/o Vaikuntachar,
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at No.19, 1st Floor, … Respondent/s
1st Cross, 6th Main, Ashwanath Nagar,
Telecom Layout, Thanishandra
Main road, Bengaluru – 560 077
(By Sri.K.S.Kalleshappa, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party/Appellant preferred this Appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru Urban dated 12-10-2021 in Complaint No.303/2021 which directed this Appellant to execute registered sale deed at Brammananda Sagara, Mysuru measuring 40X60ft situated at Hunsur Road, Yelwala village, Mysuru which has been allotted to complainant and put him in possession of the same in favour of complainant by receiving balance amount if any. If the complainant is unable to pay the remaining amount, he is at liberty to seek the refund of Rs.6,08,200/- with interest @10% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of payment till realization with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. The Opposite Party shall comply the order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order and submits that the complainant become a member of the Opposite Party society and applied for allotment of site measuring 40X60ft and he has paid a sum of Rs.6,08,200/- on various dates. 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 either to allot the site or to refund the amount paid. 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 execute registered sale deed in favour of complainant in respect of site measuring 40X60sq. ft. in the layout formed by the appellant along with compensation and litigation expenses. In fact, the complainant become a member for allotment of site measuring 40 X 60ft in total value of Rs.12,60,000/- in the appellant society at “Brammanandasagara Layout” at Mysuru and the complainant has paid Rs.3,93,000/- only and not paid the total sital value of the site. The complainant has to pay the balance sale consideration amount. The appellant has allotted the site on the basis of seniority. The delay in formation of the site is not due to any intentional, it is only due to approval from the side of authority. The appellant is ready to allot and register the site to the complainant, once the complainant makes the balance payment. The formation of the site is time consuming and requires approval from various Government 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 balance amount. In spite of that, they had filed false complaint alleging deficiency in service. The District Commission without consider the said defence has allowed the complaint and directed this appellant 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 from both sides.
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 had paid an amount of Rs.6,08,200/-. 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 layout is developed and ready for registration. In the absence of such material, we cannot believe the arguments submitted by the learned advocate for appellant. When the layout was not developed in spite of sufficient time taken, the complainant is entitled for allotment of 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 six weeks and if they fail, they have directed to refund Rs.6,08,200/- along with compensation 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.148/2022 is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order 12-10-2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban in CC.No.303/2021 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
