IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> CC 286 to 289/08 DATED 27.11.2008<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant in CC 286/08 Smt.Zamrud Bagham, MIG 18, Hudco 3rd Stage, Bannimantap B Layout, Mysore. <br /> Complainant in CC 287/08 Revanna Prasad, S/o Mallanna, No.345, 13th Cross, E Block, J.P.Nagar, Mysore.<br /> Complainant in CC 288/08 Smt.Syeda Iffath Afza, W/o Ashwaq Ahmed Khan Durani, Asst.Mstrs, Royal Girls High School, Old Exhibition Building, Mysore.<br /> Complainant in CC 289/08 Smt.Parvathamma, D/o L.Siddppa, Retired School Teacher, No.4, 5th Main, Yadavagiri, Mysore.<br /> (By Smt.Anitha A.Joshi, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties in all four cases are the same 1. The President, Primary School Teacher Housing Building Co-operative Society.<br /> 2. The Secretary, Primary School Teacher Housing Building Co-operative Society, Both R/at No.356/1, Gurukar Devanna Street, Agrahara, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.M.D.Kumar, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 11.09.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 14.10.2008<br /> Date of order : 27.11.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 ½ MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Since these complaints, though are filed by the different complainants, but the grievance being the same and against the same opposite parties are taken up together for disposal by a common order with the consent of both the parties. <br /> 2. These are the second round complaints filed by these complainants against the opposite parties for a direction to the opposite parties for issue of possession certificate and No Objection Certification (NOC) for change of khata in respect of the sites allotted in their favour as per the registered sale deed. <br /> 3. These complainants earlier to filing of these complaints had filed complaints in CC 180/07, 181/07, 182/07 and 183/07 respectively and when those complaints were taken up for enquiry after securing the presence of the opposite parties for considering the claim of the complainants for a direction to the opposite parties to execute sale deed in respect of sites allotted in their favour, the opposite parties conceded the claim of the complainants and they with the complainants filed joint memos in all those cases agreeing to execute sale deeds in favour of these complainants. Accordingly, this Forum acting on the joint memos filed by both the parties disposed of the complaints in terms of the joint memo on 04.09.2007 directing the opposite parties to execute sale deeds of the sites allotted in favour of these complainants. Accordingly, the opposite parties said to have executed sale deeds. Now the complainants have come up with these complaints with their grievance that the opposite parties thereafter have failed to deliver possession of the sites allotted to them and also to issue NOC for change of khata in their names.<br /> 4. The opposite parties have appeared through their advocate and filed versions admitting the compliance of the order passed by this Forum earlier by executing a sale deeds, but have taken a stand that the complainants have not paid the developmental charges of Rs.40,000/- each due to them, which has been fixed as per the demand received from Mysore Development Authority and therefore have got their action justified in not delivering possession and issue of NOC and have further stated if the complainants pay the developmental charges, they would issue possession certificate and also NOC. This is the controversy that remains between the parties in these complaints.<br /> 5. In the course of enquiry into these complaints, the complainants and second opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaints and versions. The complainants have produced a copy of the letter they had addressed to the opposite parties for issue of possession certificate and also NOC and also copy of the legal notice they got issued to the opposite parties in this regard. The opposite parties have not produced any documents. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 6. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complaints prove that the opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in not delivering possession of the sites allotted and in issue of NOC?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainants are entitled to?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point no. 1:- The claim of the complainants for issue of possession certificate and NOC is negatived by the opposite parties on the ground of non-payment of developmental charges by these complainants. The opposite parties it appears for the first time before this Forum have come up with the stand of non-payment of developmental charges. None of the parties canvassed this point before this Forum in the earlier proceedings when complaints were disposed of on joint memos. The complainants thereafter it is found on 17.02.2008 wrote letters to the opposite parties and also got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 13.03.2008 highlighting their grievance andthese opposite parties not delivering possession of the sites and issue of NOC. The opposite parties to whom the notices are duly served kept quite without replying to these letters and notices. If the opposite parties had replied to these complainants in response to those notices demanding developmental charges, the complainants would have if it was a legal claim complied the requirement and would not have rushed to this Forum with these complaints. Therefore, it is seen that the opposite parties have failed to inform the complainants despite having had an opportunity to do so, but kept quite without appraising these complainants of their need to pay developmental charges and therefore in that regard, we may say that these opposite parties have caused deficiency in their acts. <br /> 9. The opposite parties who represent a Housing Co-operative Society taken up the cause of the public to provide them some facility or facilities should reciprocate with its members in a way to assist them and not to exhibit silence causing inconvenience and hardship to them members. The opposite parties being the office bearers of the Housing Co-operative Society should act responsibly and they should have informed the complainants about the demand of the MUDA for payment of the developmental charges, and to pay their shares.<br /> 10. Even the complainants in our view are not reasonable and fair. It is not their case that they have already paid developmental charges of the sites allotted to them to the opposite parties in turn to pay to it the local body. Once an Housing Co-operative Society forms a layout for allotment of sites to its members, it is bound to pay any tax or charges imposed by the Urban Development Authority or any other local bodies and in turn they are required to collect from its members and discharge the claim of the local bodies. Therefore, for that purpose, the members including the complainants are required to extend their co-operation to meet that demand. The complainants have not placed any material before us having had already paid developmental charges to the opposite parties nor they have proved that the cost of the site paid by them is inclusive of developmental charges. <br /> 11. The opposite parties in their version and also in the affidavit evidence have categorically stated that they have not issued the possession certificate and NOC as the complainants have not paid developmental charges of Rs.40,000/- each. The complainants as could be seen from their affidavit evidence have not traversed or denied the claim of the opposite parties nor, they have contended that they are not liable to pay those developmental charges. Thus, the claim of the opposite parties that the complainants have not paid the developmental charges has remained unquestioned or undisputed. The complainants as evident, without traversing that aspect in their affidavit evidence have filed their affidavit evidence mechanically reproducing what they have stated in their complaints. Hence, the claim of the opposite parties for payment of developmental charges remained undisputed. Under these circumstances, if the complainants are liable to pay developmental charges, without discharging their obligations, they cannot claim for issue of possession certificate and NOC attributing deficiency to the opposite parties. With this observation, we observe that the complainants and opposite parties shall sit together and examine the quantum of claim of MUDA or other local bodies with regard to payment of developmental charges and if it is found that the complainants are liable to pay developmental charges shall pay to the opposite parties and that the opposite parties shall without any delay put them in possession of their respective sites and issue NOC without resorting to this method shall not rush to the Forum by taxing the public money and the public time. With this observation we answer point no.1 in the negative and hold that the complainants are liable to be dismissed. With the result, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> 1. The Complaints are dismissed.<br /> 2. Keep original copy of this order in CC 286/08 and Xerox copy of this order in CC 287 to 289/08.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 27th November 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />