THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 132/2018

The Secretary,

Syndicate Bank Retired

Employees Welfare Society ®

Door No.98/5, (First Floor),

1^st Main, 1^st Cross, Tank Bund Road,

(Behind New BMTC Bus Sand)

Marenhallli, 9^th Block, Jayanagar,

Bengaluru-560 041.

….Appellant/s.

(By Sri/Smt. Seshu .V, Adv.,)

                                          -Versus-

Savitha Narashiman

No.11, 2^nd Cross, CIL Layout,

Cholanayakanahalli,

R.T.Nagar Post,

Bangalore-560 032.

(By Sri. Harish Shetty., Adv.,)

……….. Respondent/s

: ORDERS:

BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR  -  JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Opposite Party in complaint No.1252/2015 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Commission filed this appeal against the order dated:06.12.2016, wherein the District commission directed them to pay an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of last payment till the date of realization along with Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost. 

2.       It is contended that the complainant has applied for allotment of site and paid an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- to the appellant/Society.  It is also not in dispute that they failed to develop the land and sites were not allotted to the complainant and all other members.  It is also admitted fact that after the failure, they are paying amount to the members and in the memorandum of appeal, we noticed that the appellant has submitted that they have 815 members in total and out of which 541 members have applied for the sites and the society has till date refunded Rs.4,58,67,851/- to the 432 members and also admitted that after the order passed in this complaint, they have paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the E.P.No.259/2017 filed by the complainant and as per the direction given by the District Commission, they also undertake to pay the balance amount in five installments. 

3.       When the appellant has undertaken to pay the award amount in the Execution Petition, the question of validity of the order in appeal does not arise.  We found there is no any grounds to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission as because the appellant is complying and paying the amount to the complainant.  The appeal is filed only for extension of time.  We found there is no any merit in this appeal.  The appellant is directed to pay the amount as per the direction given by the District Commission.  Further, the appellant filed an application U/s 5 of the limitation Act to condone the delay of 247 days in filing the appeal.  But on perusal of the accompanying affidavit, there are no valid reasons to condone the huge delay of 247 days.  Hence, on this point also, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, no interference is required.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.  Intimate the order to both parties.     

Lady Member.                                                       Judicial Member.

Tss