1.      Heard Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Piyush Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

2.      Above revision petition has been filed from the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka dated 31.03.2022, passed in FA/920/2022, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

3.      Sri Raghu V. filed consumer complaint No.34 of 2019 with the District Forum for directing the opposite parties to (a) allot a site measuring 50 feet X 80 feet and to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant in their layout named as Athmanandasagara; (b) pay compensation of Rs.9 lakhs for causing inordinate delay, tension, trauma and also pay cost of Rs.25000/-; and (c) grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit during the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and justice.

4.      The complainant intended to purchase a site measuring 50x80 feet and paid an amount of Rs.1085020/- to the opposite party. The complainant was assured that the opposite party would develop the layout plan and execute the registered sale in favour of the complainant deed within 18 months. Despite receiving the entire consideration amount, the opposite party failed to allot the site. The opposite party was executing the registered sale deed to other members. The complainant sent legal notice dated 22.10.2018 to the opposite party, which was also not replied by them. The complainant filed Complaint No.32/2019 with the District Commission.

5.      The complaint was contested by the opposite party by filing the written reply stating that the complaint was barred by limitation. Further, there was no agreement between the parties for allotment of site.

6.      The District Commission, vide order dated 25.10.2021 partly allowed the complaint with the direction to the opposite party to allot site measuring 50 x 80 at its layout i.e.  “Athmanandasagara” to the complainant within two months from the date of the order and also awarded compensation of Rs.2 lakhs within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which the opposite party shall pay interest @ 7% as. The District Commission also awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.

7.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, the opposite party filed First Appeal No.920/2022 with the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 31.03.2022 affirmed the order of the District Commission except that rate of interest was reduced from 7% to 5%. Hence, the opposite party has filed the present revision petition.

8.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Petitioner contended that the compensation awarded by the District Commission and affirmed by the State Commission was not justified. The complainant was a defaulter as he did not make payment of the balance amount of Rs.296000/-. As per Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, the dispute is triable by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Consumer Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The Complainant took membership on 03.07.2008 by making advance payment of Rs.2 lakhs. There was no agreement between the parties for allotment of a site.

9.      Relying upon Section 70 of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959, the counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959, complete remedy has been provided and the jurisdiction of Civil, Labour or Revenue Court or Industrial Tribunals has been barred. Therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. However, the counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 305 in which it has been held that Section 90 of Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act does not exclude the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 79 of Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 contains similar provision barring the jurisdiction of Civil Court and Supreme Court in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni & Anr. (2020) 10 SCC 783 held that the remedies available under the provisions of the CP Act are additional remedies over and above the other remedies including those made available under any special statutes; and that the availability of an alternative remedy is no bar in entertaining a complaint under the CP Act.

10.    The opposite party never raised demand of the balance amount and the complainant cannot be held as a defaulter. The opposite parties had withheld the amount deposited by the complainant for a considerable period of 12 years. If the opposite parties were aggrieved by non-payment of the entire amount, they were at liberty to refund the amount deposited by the complainant within a reasonable period stating that the candidature of the complainant would not be considered for allotment of site but they chose to withhold the amount and slept over the matter.

11.    Admittedly, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1085020/- in the year 2008. The opposite parties failed either to allot the site or form the layout plan till 2020, which was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

12.    Findings of fact recorded by the Fora below that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not allotting the site even after expiry of 12 years, do not suffer from any illegality. Therefore, the District Commission was justified in directing the opposite party to allot a residential site within 60 days. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. However, since the complainant is getting the site with appreciated value on same price, he is not entitled for compensation for delay in delivery of possession. Therefore, the order of the District Commission needs to be modified. 

O R D E R

In view of aforementioned discussions, the order of the District Commission is modified to the extent that the opposite party is directed to allot a residential site measuring 50 x 80 at its layout i.e. “Athmanandasagara” to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of payment of the balance amount by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Rest of the order is confirmed. The revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.