Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. This Complaint is filed against the Opposite Party seeking direction for allotment of a site measuring 30ft x 40ft situated at Nadanahalli Extension, Mysore; in alternative refund of Rs.55,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice was duly served on the O.P. Initially this Complaint was filed against the Administrator who was appointed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to manage the affairs of Opposite Party-Society. During pendency of this Complaint, the management was re-transferred to the Managing Committee. Hence, the Complaint was amended and continued against the President of the Opposite Party-Society. <br /> <br /> 3. It is the case of the Complainant – Smt Usharani that the Opposite Party is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Such Society was formed for allotment of sites to it’s members. It is further contended that one person named Sri. Giridhara Rao was member of the Society having SLF No.256. This membership was transferred in the name of Complaint, with his consent, and the consent of the Society in the year 1998. The Complainant paid the share fee of Rs.100/- and she was allotted share No.19/92. As per the application filed by the Complainant, the Opposite Party-Society has issued allotment letter No.522 by allotting a site No.281 situated at Nadanahalli Extension, Mysore. In response to such allotment letter, the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.45,000/- on 07.12.1998 and the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- on 04.02.2005. Inspite of such payments, the Opposite Party-Society has neither delivered possession of such site, nor executed any documents in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant has addressed a letter on 14.10.2005, but there was no response. Such act of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service and prayed for allowing this Complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 4. It is contended by the Opposite Party in the Version as well as additional Version, that the membership of Giridhara Rao was not transferred in the name of Complainant. As per the board resolution only successor or legal representative is entitled for such transfer. The Complainant is not having any seniority and she is not entitled to claim allotment of a site. It is further contended that the Provisional Allotment Letter No.522 was issued in the name of Sri. Giridhara Rao and not to the Complainant. The Complaint is barred by time and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. It is also contended that the Complainant is not a member of the Society and the Society is not having any site for allotment to the Complainant at present. The Society has applied for approval of modified plan to MUDA. If such plan is approved the sites would be allotted on the basis of availability and seniority of the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissing the Complaint with cost. <br /> <br /> 5. Both parties have filed affidavits and produced documents. The Opposite Party has not produced any seniority list allegedly prepared by them. Heard the Learned Counsels for both sides.<br /> <br /> 6. Points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant is a “Consumer” and this Complaint is maintainable in law?<br /> 2. Whether the Complaint is barred by time?<br /> 3. Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?<br /> 4. If so to what relief she is entitled?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> 1. Point No.1 : Affirmative.<br /> 2. Point No.2 : Negative.<br /> 3. Points No.3 & 4 : As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. POINT NO.1:- The Complainant has produced her pass book bearing No.19/82, in which there clear endorsement that she was substituted as a member of the Society in place of R.Giridhara Rao, whose SLF number was 286. Now, the Opposite Party-Society is estopped from changing it’s stand. It is clear from the pass book that the Complainant had deposited Rs.45,000/- under receipt No.7575 dated 07.12.1998. The Complainant has also produced a letter circulated by the Opposite Party dated 03.06.2003. As per this letter she was requested to pay the balance amount for obtaining site measuring 30ft x 40ft. The above facts are sufficient to come to conclusion that the Complainant became a member of the Opposite Party-Society w.e.f. 07.12.1998.<br /> <br /> 9. The second contention of the Opposite Party is that site No.281 measuring 30ft x 40ft was allotted in favour of Giridhara Rao and not in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant has produced the original letter of allotment. Unfortunately this letter is washed due to some liquid and the entire document cannot be read. But one thing is clear that the letter No.522/2000-01 was issued in respect of site No.281. If we refer to the pass book, it will be clear that Giridhara Rao was not a member of the Society after 07.12.1998. In his place Complainant continued to be a member of the Society. The Opposite Party has not produced the original copy of the letter No.522 to show that such letter of allotment was given to Giridhara Rao. Apart from the above facts, the Complainant has produced letter dated 03.06.2003, under which she was called upon to pay the balance amount. The above facts are sufficient to come to conclusion that the Complainant is allottee of site No.281, and she is a “Consumer”. So Point No.1 answered in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 10. POINT NO.2:- It is an admitted fact that the site is not handed over to the Complainant as per allotment letter No.522. The Opposite Party has come with a case that no sites are available for allotment at present. The Opposite Party has not produced the seniority list or the list of persons in whose name the sites were registered. The right of the Complainant continues till her claim is repudiated, or a site is allotted in her favour. Hence, this Complaint is in time. So point no.2 answered in negative.<br /> <br /> 11. POINTS NO.3 & 4:- It is clear from the Version and Affidavit; that the Opposite Party is not in a position to allot a site to the Complainant even if an Order is passed. It appears that due to some mis-management, the administration of the Society was taken over by the administrator. Having regard to these facts, we have no hesitation to come to conclusion that failure to allot and deliver site No.281 amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 12. It is a case, where the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.45,000/- on 07.12.1998 and waited nearly for a period of 7 years, without getting any relief. In the normal course, the Complainant would have secured interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment, from the Bank or Post Office. Hence, she is entitled to receive such amount towards interest. <br /> <br /> 13. It is important to note that cost of the site and cost of construction has gone up in last 8 years. The Complainant has suffered mental agony, as actual possession was not delivered though the site No.281 was allotted in her favour. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for damages at the rate of 9% p.a. on the deposited amount.<br /> <br /> (a) The Complainant deposited Rs.45,000/- on 07.12.1998. We have granted time for payment up to 07.09.2006. The total period comes to 7 years 9 months. On the principle amount of Rs.45,000/-, the Complainant is entitled to receive Rs.31,387=50 towards interest and Rs.31,387=50 towards the damages.<br /> (b) An amount of Rs.10,000/- was deposited on 04.02.2005 and the period up to 07.09.2006 comes to 1 year 7 months. The Opposite Party is liable to pay interest of Rs.1,425/- and damages of Rs.1,425/-, till the above mention date.<br /> <br /> 14. In view of the reasons mentioned above, the liability of the Opposite Party is as under:<br /> (1) Principle amount - Rs. 45,000=00<br /> (2) Interest - Rs. 31,387=50<br /> (3) Damages - Rs. 31,387=50<br /> (4) Principle amount - Rs. 10,000=00<br /> (5) Interest - Rs. 1,425=00<br /> (6) Damages - Rs. 1,425=00<br /> Total amount - Rs. 1,20,625=00<br /> <br /> 15. For the above reasons, we answer point no.2 & 3, and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following Order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed as under.<br /> 2. The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,20,625/- with cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> 3. In case, the Opposite Party pays the above mentioned amount prior to 07.09.2006, the Society is entitled for proportionate rebate.<br /> 4. If the Opposite Party fails to pay the above mentioned amount on or before 07.09.2006, this total amount shall carry future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from such date, till the date of payment.<br /> 5. Give a free copy of this Order to both parties according to Rules.<br /> <br />