Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant has come up with this Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievances that he is a member of the Opposite parties - House Building Co-operative Society on 10.07.1999 paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- and requested an allotment of a site measuring 30 x 40 ft. That the Opposite parties on 10.07.1999 issued a provisional allotment letter allotting a site measuring 30 x 40 ft. in Hebbal Layout. But, thereafter inspite of fulfilling all the terms and conditions as stated in the provisional allotment letter, the Opposite parties have not issued regular allotment letter and all efforts made by him to get the site finally allotted has not been met and therefore, the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in service. In the cause of action for the Complaint arose on 09.11.2006 and 21.11.2006 and thereby has prayed for a direction to the Opposite parties to allot a site by delivering physical possession and also to award damages of Rs.25,000/-.<br /> 2. The 1st Opposite party has filed his version, where the 2nd Opposite party were remained absent. The 1st Opposite party in his version admitted that the Complainant is a member of their Society and payment of Rs.45,000/-. Further admitted that the provisional allotment letter was given to the Complainant and contended that the Register of Co-operative Society had appointed an administrator to their society who has allotted all the sites to the members on their seniority and no site is available he by denying other allegations has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. <br /> 3. The Complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the Complaint allegations. The President of the 1st Opposite party is also filed his affidavit evidence by reasserting the stand he has taken in the version. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. From the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite party has caused deficiency in service in not issuing a final allotment letter allotting a site as claimed by the Complainant. <br /> 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief sought for?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 & 2 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 & 2:- There is not much disputed between the parties in the Complaint in our hands, because the 1st Opposite party has admitted that the Complainant is and was a member of their society had paid Rs.45,000/- towards allotment of a site and a provisional allotment letter was also issued to the Complainant. The allegation of the Complainant, they despite several reminders, the Opposite parties have not issued a final allotment letter allotting a site to him in pursuance of the provisional allotment has not been denied by the Opposite parties. It is not even the case of the Opposite parties that the Complainant was not entitled for averment of a site on any count. The Opposite parties have not come up with any reasons or explanation in not issuing a final allotment letter allotting a site to the Complainant and to deliver the possession of it to him after following the necessary required procedure. What the 1st Opposite party in his version and affidavit stated is that in a administrator was appointed to the society by the Registrar of Co-operative Society who has allotted all the sites to the members of the society on seniority basis and therefore no site is available for allotment to the Complainant. <br /> 7. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the Complainant has produced some documents to prove, even after the period of the administration of the administrator was over sites are allotted to several persons and submitted that the contention of the 1st Opposite party in this regard is false. They also produced a Xerox copy of the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 18.09.2006 rendered in Appeal No.892/2005 in other connected matters in which the Hon’ble State Commission has referred a submission made by the learned counsel who represent the Opposite parties that there were 22 sites available with the society for allotment in favour of it’s members. Thereafter, the State Commission directed the Opposite party – Society to allot sites in favour of members in whose favour there are orders. This fact has not been controverted by the Opposite parties. The learned counsel for the Complainant has also produced an encumbrance certificate, which shows even as on 23.04.2007 a site bearing No.139 measuring 30 x 40 ft. was stand in the name of the Opposite party society. It is, therefore, evident that contention of the Opposite parties that there is no site for allotment is false and amounts to suppression of facts, which is taken serious note of and at the same time, the attitude of 1st Opposite party is deprecated and condemn in he having sworn a false affidavit stating that there are no sites available for allotment. This affidavit sworn to by him on 01.03.2007, which is apparently a false one.<br /> 8. As already pointed out above, the Opposite parties who received a sum of Rs.45,000/- on 10.07.1999 and issued a provisional allotment letter have thereafter intentionally omitted or neglected to issue final allotment letter and to deliver possession of that site to the complainant after other due formalities. Further, it is clear from material placed before this Forum, which are undisputed that the Opposite parties after utilizing the money paid by the complainant for development of their layout appears to have allotted sites to the people of their choice who had not even paid full value of the sites sidelining the honest members who had paid their prompt subscription and earned huge profits. It is an admitted fact that the land in around Mysore which are available for meager amounts have year by year gained escalation and since two – three years, the escalation of cost of lands as increased geometrically. The payment of interest to the complainant for his money in our view would not be a solace. Because, if the site had been allotted to the complainant and given possession for Rs.45,000/- are little more whatever would be value in the year 1999. By this time, it’s value would have gone not less than 12 to 15 lakhs to our knowledge. Therefore, the case on hand deserves to be considered for awarding higher rate of interest. This is apparent from the enquiry report of the enquiry officer of the Register of Co-operative Society who enquired under section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act and which is made available to this Forum by the complainant. Therefore, the say of the 1st Opposite party that there is no site available for allotment cannot be believed. Thus, on perusal of the entire material placed before us, we have no hesitation to hold that the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in not issuing a final allotment letter allotting the proposed site to the complainant and therefore the complainant would be entitled to a partial relief. The claim of the complainant for awarding damages of Rs.25,000/- is not substantiated. Therefore, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties are directed to allot a site measuring 30 x 40 ft. of Hebbal layout and put the complainant in possession of the same by following necessary requirements in favour of the complainant subject to the balance of payment if any and other legal payments within 3 months from the date of this order.<br /> 3. If it is prove that as on the date of this order, that no site is available for allotment in Hebbal layout then the Opposite parties are directed to refund the deposit amount of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of it’s deposit till the date of payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Opposite parties are directed to pay interest at 20% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment.<br /> 4. The Opposite parties are also directed to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- being the cost of this complaint. <br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />