M/s Karnatka Power Transmission V/S Ranganatha - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/1867

Ranganatha - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Karnatka Power Transmission - Opp.Party(s)

MDA

21 Oct 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/1867

Ranganatha						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s Karnatka Power Transmission						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. MDA

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos. 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870 & 1871/2008 COMPLAINT NO. 1867/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 1868/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 1869/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 1870/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 1871/08 COMPLAINANT Sri. T. Ranganath, Aged about 68 years, Son of Late Sri. Thimma Setty, Residing at No. 81, Mahalakshmi Nilaya 4th Main, Muniramanna Block, Ganganagar Extension, Bangalore 560 032. Sri. M. Vittala Rao, Aged about 68 years, S/o. Late Sri. N.L. Mahipathi Rao, Residing at No. U 11, Sri Gowri Nilaya, Ganesha Block, Seshadripuram, Bangalore 560 020. Sri. K.B. Thimmaraju, Aged about 50 years, Son of Sri. K. Balappa, Residing at Balaji Nilaya, Saptagiri Extension, K.E.B. Layout, Tumkur. Sri. D.V. Govindaswamy, Aged about 65 years, S/o.Late Sri. M. Venkataramaiah, Residing at No. 41/2, M.I.G II Stage, K.H.B. Colony, Basaweswaranagar, Bangalore 560 079. Sri. Mari Gowda, Aged about 65 years, Son of Late Sri. Linge Gowda, Residing at No. 38, 15th Cross, 4th Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560 078. Advocate (M.D. Alavandar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Employees Co-operative Society Limited, Ananda Rao Circle, Race Course Road, Bangalore 560 009. Represented by its Honorary Secretary, Now called as Executive Director. Advocate (Guru Prasad. B.R.) 2. K.P. Champakadhama Swamy, S/o. Late K.S. Puttaswamy, R/at 291, 1st A Main, 2nd Stage, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore 86. O R D E R These are the five complaints filed by the respective complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) seeking directions to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to the sites allotted to them and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. As the opposite parties are common, the question involved and relief claimed being the same, in the interest of justice in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning these cases stand disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of the complaints are as under: Each one of these complainants as per the details furnished in the below mentioned chart became the member of the OP society with a fond hope of purchasing the site of their choice in the layout to be formed by the OP. Sl. No. Complaint No. Account No. Site No. Measurement Amount Paid Date of Sale Deed 01 1867/08 3652 29 30 X 40 feet 3,47,000 71,400 26.08.06 02 1868/08 7475 100 40 X 60 feet 6,90,000 1,55,350 26.08.06 03 1869/08 9425 45 (40 X 60 feet) 30 X 40 feet 6,90,000 84,800 26.08.06 04 1870/08 2976 61 30 X 40 feet 3,45,000 84,800 26.08.06 05 1871/08 4606 101 40 X 60 feet 6,90,000 1,85,270 26.08.06 OP accepted their membership and gave the account number. Complainants opted to purchase the site of their choice and paid the entire sital value along with registration, stamp duty and other charges. OP society executed the registered sale deed on 26.08.2006 in favour of these complainants with respect to the site allotted to them. With all that evenafter the lapse of more than 2 years OP failed to deliver them the registered sale deed. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants, went in vain. OP with ulterior motive dragging on the proceedings, OP failed to demarcate the site and failed to put the complainants in actual and physical possession of the site, registered in their favour. For no fault of theirs, complainants are made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances they felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the relief accordingly. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain these complaints and complainants have not availed the services of the OP as contemplated. It is further contended that the complaints are barred by time. Actually the said sale deeds were executed by the then Executive Director K.P. Champakadhama Swamy, thereafter the new committee was elected. But unfortunately the earlier Executive Director has not handed over the detailed charges including that of the so called sale deeds. There was a misappropriation of the society funds, OP society has raised the dispute against the earlier Executive Director before the Joint-Registrar of Co-operative Society. Even the Police complaints were filed, all the matters are under investigation. Under such circumstances OP is unable to handover the said sale deeds. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The other allegations are baseless. The complaints are devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaints. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants filed their affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the each one of these complainants became the member of the OP society. OP having accepted their membership allotted them the account number as noted in the chart referred to above. It is also not at dispute that OP formed a layout and out of the said residential layout it allotted the sites of measurement mentioned in the above said chart in favour of each one of these complainants and also collected the sital value including registration, development, stamp duty, etc. Then OP society executed the registered sale deed with respect to the said sites in favour of the complainants respectively on 26.08.2006. 9. Now it is the grievance of the complainants that though they waited patiently for more than 2 years, OP failed to handover the original sale deed. For want of the sale deed they are prevented from getting khatha changed in their name and to go ahead with the construction, etc. The evidence of the complainants appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of these complainants. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. 10. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. OP wants to throw the blame and burden on the earlier so called Executive Director K.P. Champakadhama Swamy. If OP has initiated any criminal proceedings and other irregularities committed by the Ex-Executive Director before the Joint-Registrar of Co-operative Societies as well as before the COD or Police concerned, it is for the OP to get settled its dispute against the said Ex-Executive Director. In our view those proceedings will not come in the way of complainants in seeking the present relief. 11. Complainants have invested their hard earned money to purchase a site, OP evenafter the receipt of the sital value as well as the other charges, though executed the sale deed, failed to put them in possession of the said site and failed to hand over the original sale deeds in their favour. This hostile attitude and motivated act of the OP, in our view amounts to deficiency in service. Complainants are unable to reap the fruits of their investment because of the non-cooperation by the OP society. If there is a dispute between the new committee and the old committee and the Ex-Executive Director and the present Executive Director it is for them to sort out their difference they cannot make the complainants as a scapegoat for their personal difference. The very approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. It is much contended by the OP that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and complaints are barred by time, we do not find any force in the said defence. 12. The fact that OP has formed the said layout and sold the sites to its members is established, when that is so, it is the bounden duty of the OP to locate, identity and demarcate the said sites in favour of the purchasers and put them in physical and actual possession and handover the title deeds, but OP has not done this. Naturally complainants must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that the complainants are able to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaints are allowed. In complaint No. 1867/2008 OP is directed to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to site No. 29 dated 26.08.2006 within 2 months from the date of this order and identify the said site, demarcate it, put the complainant in possession of the same and also pay a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 1868/2008 OP is directed to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to site No. 100 dated 26.08.2006 within 2 months from the date of this order and identify the said site, demarcate it, put the complainant in possession of the same and also pay a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 1869/2008 OP is directed to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to site No. 45 dated 26.08.2006 within 2 months from the date of this order and identify the said site, demarcate it, put the complainant in possession of the same and also pay a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 1870/2008 OP is directed to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to site No. 61 dated 26.08.2006 within 2 months from the date of this order and identify the said site, demarcate it, put the complainant in possession of the same and also pay a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 1871/2008 OP is directed to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to site No. 101 dated 26.08.2006 within 2 months from the date of this order and identify the said site, demarcate it, put the complainant in possession of the same and also pay a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. The original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No. 1867/2008 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective file. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of October 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos. 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870 & 1871/2008 COMPLAINT NO. 1867/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 1868/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 1869/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 1870/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 1871/08 COMPLAINANT Sri. T. Ranganath, Aged about 68 years, Son of Late Sri. Thimma Setty, Residing at No. 81, Mahalakshmi Nilaya 4th Main, Muniramanna Block, Ganganagar Extension, Bangalore 560 032. Sri. M. Vittala Rao, Aged about 68 years, S/o. Late Sri. N.L. Mahipathi Rao, Residing at No. U 11, Sri Gowri Nilaya, Ganesha Block, Seshadripuram, Bangalore 560 020. Sri. K.B. Thimmaraju, Aged about 50 years, Son of Sri. K. Balappa, Residing at Balaji Nilaya, Saptagiri Extension, K.E.B. Layout, Tumkur. Sri. D.V. Govindaswamy, Aged about 65 years, S/o.Late Sri. M. Venkataramaiah, Residing at No. 41/2, M.I.G II Stage, K.H.B. Colony, Basaweswaranagar, Bangalore 560 079. Sri. Mari Gowda, Aged about 65 years, Son of Late Sri. Linge Gowda, Residing at No. 38, 15th Cross, 4th Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560 078. Advocate (M.D. Alavandar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Employees Co-operative Society Limited, Ananda Rao Circle, Race Course Road, Bangalore 560 009. Represented by its Honorary Secretary, Now called as Executive Director. Advocate (Guru Prasad. B.R.) 2. K.P. Champakadhama Swamy, S/o. Late K.S. Puttaswamy, R/at 291, 1st A Main, 2nd Stage, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore 86. O R D E R These are the five complaints filed by the respective complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) seeking directions to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to the sites allotted to them and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. As the opposite parties are common, the question involved and relief claimed being the same, in the interest of justice in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning these cases stand disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of the complaints are as under: Each one of these complainants as per the details furnished in the below mentioned chart became the member of the OP society with a fond hope of purchasing the site of their choice in the layout to be formed by the OP. Sl. No. Complaint No. Account No. Site No. Measurement Amount Paid Date of Sale Deed 01 1867/08 3652 29 30 X 40 feet 3,47,000 71,400 26.08.06 02 1868/08 7475 100 40 X 60 feet 6,90,000 1,55,350 26.08.06 03 1869/08 9425 45 (40 X 60 feet) 30 X 40 feet 6,90,000 84,800 26.08.06 04 1870/08 2976 61 30 X 40 feet 3,45,000 84,800 26.08.06 05 1871/08 4606 101 40 X 60 feet 6,90,000 1,85,270 26.08.06 OP accepted their membership and gave the account number. Complainants opted to purchase the site of their choice and paid the entire sital value along with registration, stamp duty and other charges. OP society executed the registered sale deed on 26.08.2006 in favour of these complainants with respect to the site allotted to them. With all that evenafter the lapse of more than 2 years OP failed to deliver them the registered sale deed. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants, went in vain. OP with ulterior motive dragging on the proceedings, OP failed to demarcate the site and failed to put the complainants in actual and physical possession of the site, registered in their favour. For no fault of theirs, complainants are made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances they felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the relief accordingly. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain these complaints and complainants have not availed the services of the OP as contemplated. It is further contended that the complaints are barred by time. Actually the said sale deeds were executed by the then Executive Director K.P. Champakadhama Swamy, thereafter the new committee was elected. But unfortunately the earlier Executive Director has not handed over the detailed charges including that of the so called sale deeds. There was a misappropriation of the society funds, OP society has raised the dispute against the earlier Executive Director before the Joint-Registrar of Co-operative Society. Even the Police complaints were filed, all the matters are under investigation. Under such circumstances OP is unable to handover the said sale deeds. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The other allegations are baseless. The complaints are devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaints. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants filed their affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the each one of these complainants became the member of the OP society. OP having accepted their membership allotted them the account number as noted in the chart referred to above. It is also not at dispute that OP formed a layout and out of the said residential layout it allotted the sites of measurement mentioned in the above said chart in favour of each one of these complainants and also collected the sital value including registration, development, stamp duty, etc. Then OP society executed the registered sale deed with respect to the said sites in favour of the complainants respectively on 26.08.2006. 9. Now it is the grievance of the complainants that though they waited patiently for more than 2 years, OP failed to handover the original sale deed. For want of the sale deed they are prevented from getting khatha changed in their name and to go ahead with the construction, etc. The evidence of the complainants appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of these complainants. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. 10. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. OP wants to throw the blame and burden on the earlier so called Executive Director K.P. Champakadhama Swamy. If OP has initiated any criminal proceedings and other irregularities committed by the Ex-Executive Director before the Joint-Registrar of Co-operative Societies as well as before the COD or Police concerned, it is for the OP to get settled its dispute against the said Ex-Executive Director. In our view those proceedings will not come in the way of complainants in seeking the present relief. 11. Complainants have invested their hard earned money to purchase a site, OP evenafter the receipt of the sital value as well as the other charges, though executed the sale deed, failed to put them in possession of the said site and failed to hand over the original sale deeds in their favour. This hostile attitude and motivated act of the OP, in our view amounts to deficiency in service. Complainants are unable to reap the fruits of their investment because of the non-cooperation by the OP society. If there is a dispute between the new committee and the old committee and the Ex-Executive Director and the present Executive Director it is for them to sort out their difference they cannot make the complainants as a scapegoat for their personal difference. The very approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. It is much contended by the OP that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and complaints are barred by time, we do not find any force in the said defence. 12. The fact that OP has formed the said layout and sold the sites to its members is established, when that is so, it is the bounden duty of the OP to locate, identity and demarcate the said sites in favour of the purchasers and put them in physical and actual possession and handover the title deeds, but OP has not done this. Naturally complainants must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that the complainants are able to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaints are allowed. In complaint No. 1867/2008 OP is directed to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to site No. 29 dated 26.08.2006 within 2 months from the date of this order and identify the said site, demarcate it, put the complainant in possession of the same and also pay a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 1868/2008 OP is directed to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to site No. 100 dated 26.08.2006 within 2 months from the date of this order and identify the said site, demarcate it, put the complainant in possession of the same and also pay a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 1869/2008 OP is directed to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to site No. 45 dated 26.08.2006 within 2 months from the date of this order and identify the said site, demarcate it, put the complainant in possession of the same and also pay a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 1870/2008 OP is directed to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to site No. 61 dated 26.08.2006 within 2 months from the date of this order and identify the said site, demarcate it, put the complainant in possession of the same and also pay a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 1871/2008 OP is directed to deliver the registered sale deed with respect to site No. 101 dated 26.08.2006 within 2 months from the date of this order and identify the said site, demarcate it, put the complainant in possession of the same and also pay a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. The original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No. 1867/2008 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective file. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of October 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.