Complaint filed on: 21-10-2010

                                                      Disposed on: 22-01-2011

BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.2420/2010

DATED THIS THE 22^nd JANUARY 2011

PRESENT

SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT

SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER

SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER

Complainant: -             

                                                          Vijaya.S.Bhat

                                                          House No.109, 11^th Main,

                                                          2^nd Cross, 3^rd Phase,

                                                          Girinagar, Bangalore-85

V/s

Opposite party: -

                                                          Secretary,

                                                          Vishwa Bharathi House

                                                          Building Co-operative

                                                          Society, No.35,

                                                          Rathnavilas Road,

                                                          Basavanagudi, Bangalore-04  

O  R D E R

SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,

          The grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [herein after called as OP] in brief is, that she as a member of OP Housing Building Co-Operative Society since 24-4-1999. She has been allotted a site bearing No.1075 measuring 40 X 60 feet in the IV Phase Vishwabharathi Housing Project. As per the oral instruction from its president, she paid Rs.48,000/- on 24-4-1999 and again paid more amount like Rs.1,80,000/- on 25-10-2007, Rs.1,20,000/- on 26-10-2007 and on 26-10-2007 another Rs.60,000/-, in all amounting into Rs.4,08,101=62 inclusive Rs.101=62 towards membership fee. The OP though had assured registration has not done, then she demanded for allotment of site or for refund of money on 5-3-2010 and therefore has prayed for a direction to get her site or for refund of her money.

          2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version, contending that the complaint is not maintainable. Further denying that the complainant is a member of society, besides denying receipt of the money alleged to have been paid by the complainant has narrated by her in the complaint. The OP has seriously denied issue of receipt as relied upon by the complainant and stated receipts towards payment of Rs.48,000/-, Rs.1,20,000/- and another Rs.60,000/- are all in correct and do not pertain to society as they are issued by and in the name of Vishwabharathi Housing Project, which has nothing to do with the OP society. This OP further denying allotment of site No.1075 has also denied any assurance given in that regard. It is further contended that the receipts are all created and stated the transaction of payment by the complainant to Vishwabharathi Housing Project was individual transaction between one B.Krishna Bhatt, the removed president of OP society, which is nothing to do with the society activities and therefore attributing collusion between the complainant and B.Krishna Bhatt has stated that B.Krishna Bhatt, the past president has been removed from the presidentship by authority concerned vide orders dated 17-8-2009 and further stated that the president has no authority to receive payment on behalf of society and by denying all other allegations has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Secretary of the OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of calculation of the amount paid by her with copies of receipts in proof of those payments. OP has produced a copy of bye-law and copy of notice issued to the President of OP society under section 64 (3) (a) (b) of Co-operative Societies Act. We have heard one Mr.P.S.Bhatt a person authorized by the complainant to prosecute the complaint on her behalf and heard the counsel for the OP besides perusing the records.

          4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.

1)     Whether the complainant proves that she as a member of OP society has paid, in all Rs.4,08,101=62 to Op and that OP has caused deficiency in his service in not allotting a site or refund of her money?

2)     To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

5. Our findings are as under:

Point no.1: In the negative

Point no.2: See the final Order

REASONS

          6. Answer on Point No.1: As manifest from the contentions of the OP, the OP has seriously denied that the complainant is a member of OP society and paid any amount towards allotment of site to that society, besides denying that receipts produced by the complainant.  It is further contended by the OP that some of receipts produced by the complainant are issued on behalf of Vishwabharathi Housing Project which has nothing to do with the OP society and the complainant in collusion with the former president of OP society had obtained collusive receipts. In view of such stand taken by the complainant, burden is on the complainant to rebut the defence of the OP and to substantiate her claim. The complainant has produced a copy of receipt dated 24-4-1999 for Rs.101=62 having paid share amount to become a member. But the complainant has not chosen to produce the original receipt or even to summon the membership register maintained by OP to prove that she was taken as a member of OP society and was given any membership number. The complainant has also produced another copy of receipt of the same date, month and year, which is in the name of Vishwabharathi Housing Project. Under this receipt a sum of Rs.48,000/- shown to have been received by the President of that Housing Project who was also the President of OP society as found in the membership receipt. Under this 2^nd receipt, the complainant found to have been given site No.1075 measuring 40 X 60 feet with an endorsement subject to availability of site and re-conveyance.   Then 3^rd receipt dated 25-10-2007 under which a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- shown to have been paid which is said to be towards betterment charges through a DD.  This receipt of course is said to be of Op.   In this receipt again, it is stated that site number to be allotted again with same endorsement subject to availability of site etc. 4^th and 5^th receipts are dated 26-10-2007 again receipts are of Vishwabharathi Housing Project under which a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively are received. Receipt No.3 for Rs.1,80,000/- is signed by a person who was neither the president nor secretary of OP society. Again 4^th and 5^th receipts also are not signed by the then president though the signatures are made above printed matter as president, the complainant has not proved who has issued those receipts and to whom those payments were made, as these receipts are not being receipts of OP society. The complainant should establish as how these payments alleged have been made in favour of Vishwabharathi Housing Project can be construed as payments to OP society. The complainant has not made any efforts to prove that these payments were made to housing projects in favour of OP society. The complainant shown to had made few of the payments through cheques that being so, she could have proved as to whom these payments are made by the bank under those cheques. But no endeavor is made by the complainant in this regard. As such the payments said to have been made by the complainant cannot be taken as payments made to OP society towards allotment of a site.

7. It is argued by the counsel for the OP that one B.Krishna Bhatt who was the president of OP society alleged to have received certain payments from the complainant and there is allegation of mis-appropriation of funds and mis-using of Office of OP society and he was not also authorized to receive any payments.  Even as found from the copies of receipts produced by the complainant, it is found that the alleged payments Rs.101=62 was made towards share amount in favour of OP society. But on the same day alleged to have paid Rs.48,000/- and receipt of this payment stands in the name of Vishwabharathi Housing Project, she could have seen from this difference and objected for issue receipt of Housing Project instead of OP society. However, it is manifest that the complainant has failed to prove by acceptable evidence that payments made by her are paid towards OP society and that OP society is accountable to her. Even the allegations of the complainant, she was allotted a site measuring 40 X 60 feet cannot be accepted, as such the complainant who has failed to substantiate payments cannot complain any deficiency against the OP. Hence we answer point no-1 in the negative and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and pass the following order.

ORDER

Complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 22^nd January 2011.

Member                         Member                   President