| Complaint Case No. CC/321/2017 | | ( Date of Filing : 04 Nov 2017 ) |
| | | | 1. H.J.Puttaswamy | | S/o late Javarashetty, Badge No.820, K.R.Nagara Depot, Mysuru Rural Division, Mysuru and D.No.206, MIG-1, J-1, KHB Colony, Hootagalli, Mysuru | | Mysuru | | Karnataka |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Mysuru Rural KSRTC Employees HBCS and another | | President, Mysuru Rural KSRTC Employees House Building Co-Op.Society , Office at D.No.95, K.T.Road, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru and D.No.661, Basappa Complex, M Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysuru | | Mysuru | | Karnataka | | 2. Secretary, Mysuru Rural KSRTC Employees House Buildig Co-Operative Society | | Secretary, Mysuru Rural KSRTC Employees House Building Co-Op.Society , Office at D.No.95, K.T.Road, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru and D.No.661, Basappa Complex, M Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysuru | | Mysuru | | Karnataka |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.321/2017 DATED ON THIS THE 15h June 2018 Present: 1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT 2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C. B.E., LLB., PGDCLP - MEMBER COMPLAINANT/S | | : | H.J.Puttaswamy, S/o Late Javarashetty, Retired KSRTC Employee/Driver, Badge No.820, K.R.Nagara Depot, Mysuru Rural Division, Mysuru and R/at D.No.206, MIG-1, J-1, KHB Colony, Hootagalli, Mysuru. (Sri M.C.Dileepkumar, Adv.) | | | | | | | | V/S | | OPPOSITE PARTY/S | | : | - The President, Mysuru Rural KSRTC Employees House Building Co-operative Society (R), Office at D.No.95, K.T.Road, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru. And presently Office at D.No.661, Basappa Complex, M Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysuru.
- The secretary, Mysuru Rural KSRTC Employees House Building Co-operative Society (R), Office at D.No.95, K.T.Road, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru. And presently Office at D.No.661, Basappa Complex, M Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysuru.
(Sri H.P.Sathyanarayana, Adv.) | | Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service | Date of filing of complaint | : | 04.11.2017 | Date of Issue notice | : | 09.11.2017 | Date of order | : | 15.06.2018 | Duration of Proceeding | : | 7 MONTHS 11 DAYS | | | | | | | | | |
Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY, President - This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to allot a site measuring 40 x 60 ft. at the rate of Rs.315 per sq.ft. instead of Rs.500 per sq.ft. and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant with costs.
- The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a member of opposite party society and sought for allotment of site measuring 40 x 60 ft. and deposited a sum of Rs.7,57,000/- on different dates. The last payment was made on 06.12.2012, the complainant approached the opposite parties on several occasion till February 2017 for allotment of site. But, the opposite party society has dodged the matter on one or the other reason. Abruptly, the opposite party society has demanded payment of Rs.510 per sq.ft. instead of Rs.315 per sq.ft. and demanded to pay additional amount of Rs.2,94,000/-. In spite of request made by the complainant site was not allotted, it amounts to deficiency of service and claiming more amount amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint is filed.
- Opposite party society appeared through the advocate and filed the following version:- The allegations made in the complaint that it was agreed to sold site at Rs.315 per sq.ft. is not correct. Initially, Rs.15,000/- was collected, it was share amount and no advance towards the cost of the site. In the committee meeting dated 30.08.2012, the society has taken a decision to fix at Rs.500 per sq.ft. and it was informed to all the members. Even the complainant was informed to remit the remaining balance. But, he has not paid the amount. Thereby, he is not in the seniority list. Hence, opposite parties sought for dismissal of the complaint.
- On the above pleadings, this matter is set down for evidence. During evidence, complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on documents. Likewise, Secretary of the opposite party society filed his affidavit evidence. Further evidence closed. After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.
- The points arose for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not allotting the site, thereby complainant is entitled for the relief sought?
- What order?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative. Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following :: R E A S O N S :: - Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that the complainant became a member of opposite party society and paid share amount and also Rs.7,57,000/- towards cost of the site. This aspect is not dispute, since there is no allotment made by the opposite parties, he has requested for allotment of site. The contention of other side that as directed by the opposite party society, complainant has not remitted the amount. Thereby, there is no seniority to the complainant and he is not entitled for the site at this stage. On the other hand, the seniority will be considered later.
- Further, it is argued by the advocate for complainant that as per the photos produced by the complainant, opposite party has not made any attempt to form the layout, even now the land in question is having characteristic of agricultural land. The payment was made in 2010-12 by the complainant, in spite of it, there is no progress made by the opposite party society for formation of layout and attempt to allot the site to the members. But, surprisingly a notice was given to the complainant which is dated 13.12.2017 claiming additional amount since there is more costs for development of the land in question. But, as per the photos produced by the complainant, there is no progress even in 2017 either after filing of the complaint or before filing of the complaint. If such being the case, can the opposite party being service provider goes on postponing the services to be rendered to its consumer is a point. In this case, there is lapses on the part of opposite party society in not forming the layout itself. Thereby, the claim of opposite parties for more amount per sq.ft. is unsustainable. As such, this Forum finds that the act of opposite party society amounts not only deficiency in service but also amounts to unfair trade practice in not allotting the site in claiming more amount than what was fixed earlier without developing the land. Accordingly, opposite parties are liable to answer the claim. The complainant is entitled for allotment of site with compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
- Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, both parties are liable to allot a site measuring 40 x 60 ft. at the rate of Rs.315 per sq.ft. and also they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Hence, we pass the following order:-
:: O R D E R :: - The complaint is allowed in part.
- The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to allot site measuring 40 x 60 ft. to the complainant and to register the same in his name and to give possession at the rate of Rs.315 (Rs.7,57,000/- already paid) per sq.ft. in 60 days. Failing which, the opposite parties shall pay penalty of Rs.200/- per day to the complainant till compliance is made.
- The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. Failing which the opposite parties shall pay interest at 12% p.a. on the said total sum of Rs.52,000/- from the date of this complaint i.e. 04.11.2017 till payment.
- In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
(D | |
