BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JULY, 2023
APPEAL NOS. 1856/2022 TO 1858/2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER
1. APPEAL NO.1856/2022
T.Ravikiran S/o V.R.Thimmegowda
Aged about 47 years,
Ashirwad, 1st Cross,
2nd Main Road, Kuvempunagar,
Tumkur-572103 … Appellant/s
2. APPEAL NO.1857/2022
Ramaiah S/o Karechowdappa,
Aged about 75 years,
“Chowdeshwari Nilaya”
No.149, 10th Cross,
Vidyanagar, Tumkur-572103
3. APPEAL NO.1858/2022
M.S.Jayaprakash S/o M.S.Kumar,
Aged about 75 years,
“Nandi” No.967, 24th Cross,
SIT Extension, Tumkur-572103
(All the Appellants - By Sri.Ravi.A.R, Advocate)
-Versus-
1. M/s. Karnataka Telecom Department
Employees Co-Operative Society
Amims Castel No.706, 1st Floor
Near CBI Road, HMT Layout,
RT Nagar post, Bengaluru-560 032
Rept. By its President
… Respondent/s
2. M/s Karnataka Telecom
Department Employees Co-Operative
Society Ltd, (Credit & Housing)
No.706, 1st Floor, CBI Road,
HMT Layout, RT Nagar post,
Bengaluru-560 032
Rept. By its Secretary
(Respondents Nos.1 and 2- By Sri.D.S.Lokesh, Advocate)
(Appellants are same in all the appeals).
COMMON ORDER
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellants/complainants have preferred this Appeals No.1856/2022 to 1858/2022 for enhancement of the interest awarded by the District Commission order dated 01-8-2022 in Complaint Nos.157/2020, 171/2020 and 158/2020 from 9% to 18% per annum, in the interest of justice and equity. In these appeals, the appellants are different and respondents are one and the same and the matter in issue is also the same. Hence, these appeals are being disposed-off by a common order.
2. The case of the appellants/complainants is that they are become a members of these Opposite Parties society and they applied for allotment of sites measuring 30 X 40ft. in Sukhananda Sagar layout, Belavadi village, Mysuru District and “Sukheebhava layout”, Indalbele village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District and they have paid total sum of Rs.1,96,800/-, Rs.4,80,000/- and Rs.1,96,800/- respectively. After payment of the said amount, the complainants requested for allotment of the sites, but the Opposite Parties deliberately not allotted the sites and postpone the allotment of sites for the one or the other reason. The complainants made several representations either to allot the site or to refund the amount paid. But the Opposite Parties kept quiet without considering the requests made by the complainants. Subsequently, the complainants issued legal notice and called upon the Opposite Parties to refund the amount paid towards allotment along with interest and even in spite of legal notice the Opposite Parties not replied the legal notice. Subsequently, the complainants filed these complaints alleging deficiency in service and sought for relief of the refund.
3. After trial, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaints and directed these Opposite Parties to refund Rs.1,96,800/-, Rs.4,80,000/- and Rs.1,96,800/- respectively with interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective payment till realization and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. In fact, the complainants become the members for allotment of sites measuring 30 X 40sq. ft. to be formed in Belavadi village and Indalbele village under the layout named Sukhananda Sagara Layout and Sukheebhava layout at Mysuru district and Bengaluru Rural District. In the year 2007 the Opposite Party society had performed the Bhoomi Pooja in the said layout and they had applied for conversion of land and they were ready to give site as per seniority list. If the complainants pay the balance amount, site will be allotted to complainants. The complainants are not come forward to the pay the balance amount. In spite of that they had filed false complaints alleging deficiency in service. The District Commission without considering the said defence has allowed the complaints and directed these Opposite Parties to refund the amount with 9% interest. In fact, they ready to allot the sites, hence prayed for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Heard from both sides.
5. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order passed by the District consumer Commission, it is noticed that the complainants paid an amount of Rs.1,96,800/-, Rs.4,80,000/- and Rs.1,96,800/- in the respective appeals. The complainants constrained to file the complaints for refund of the amount with 18% interest per annum along with compensation and litigation cost. These appellants had not shown any material to show that they have suffered loss. In the absence of such materials, we cannot appreciate the arguments submitted by the learned advocate for appellants. Hence, the District Commission has rightly appreciated the evidence and documents produced by the complainants and allowed the complaints and directed the Opposite Party to refund Rs.1,96,800/-, Rs.4,80,000/- and Rs.1,96,800/- with 9% interest per annum. We consider that the 9% interest on the said amount is sufficient and in accordance with law. We do not find any merits in the appeals. As such the appeals are dismissed and the order passed by the District Commission is confirmed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The appeals Nos.1856/2022 to 1858/2022 are hereby dismissed.
The impugned order 1-8-2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Urban) in CC.No.157/2020, 171/2020 and 158/2020 is confirmed.
The original of this order shall be kept in appeal No.1856/2022 and a copy thereof shall be kept in Appeal No.1857/2022 and 1858/2022.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
Jrk/-
