IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 449/09 DATED 07.01.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt. Pushpalatha W/o Sri Venugopal, R/at D.No.53, ‘A’ Block, Jalapuri, Mysore-570011.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. B.S. Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The President, Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., At No.3, 4, 5, 3rd cross, Manasara Road, Indiranagar, Mysore-570010.<br /> <br /> 2. The Secretary, Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., At No.3, 4, 5, 3rd cross, Manasara Road, Indiranagar, Mysore-570010.<br /> ( By Sri. S.C. Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03.12.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 18.12.2009<br /> Date of order : 07.01.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 20 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party, seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.86,297.50, the amount paid towards allotment of a site including the interest at 18% p.a.; a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- compensation towards loss, mental agony, harassment and to grant the litigation cost.<br /> <br /> 2. Amongst other facts in the complaint it is alleged that, the complainant became member of the opposite party society and on the assurance that, a site measuring 30 X 40 feet in the lay out to be formed at Srirampura village of Mysore Taluk would be allotted, by paying in all Rs.112.50 on 23.10.1989 as required by the opposite party with a fond hope to get a site allotted. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.15,780/- towards value of the site on 23.10.1989. The opposite party further required the complainant to remit Rs.2,300/- towards water supply charges, which was paid on 23.10.1989 and Rs.1,048.50 on 16.01.2003. In all complainant had paid Rs. 19,240.50 to the opposite party. The complainant is the senior member of the opposite party. The opposite party formed sites of different dimensions in two stages in Srirampura and other places. The opposite party also allotted those stages to different members and outsiders, virtually ignoring the seniority of the complainant. In spite of several requests made by the complainant, the opposite party went on postponing the allotment of a site. The opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Further it is alleged that, if opposite party had allotted a site in the year 1990, certainly it could have fetched not less than Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the complainant put to untold hardship, mental agony and harassment at the hands of the opposite party. When the complainant called upon to opposite party to refund the amount with interest, it sent a cheque for Rs.10,000/- only along with covering letter dated 19.11.2008. That cheque has been returned to the opposite party with a request to pay the entire amount together with interest at 18% p.a. The opposite party failed to comply the demands made therein. On these grounds it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version, the opposite party has denied certain allegations made in the complaint, but has admitted that, the complainant had paid the amount towards allotment of the site. In 9th paragraph of the version, it is contended that, on account of notification of the MUDA, the society had to acquired alternative land and in the year 2005, in the meeting, formation of fresh layout was discussed and lands at Karegalli and Yedhahalli were purchased at a higher cost. Also, it is alleged the resolution of the General Body Meeting was communicated to the complainant, but she failed to pay the required consideration amount. On these ground, it is prayed to dismissed the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant has filed her affidavit, to prove the facts alleged in the complaint and also produced certain documents. On the other hand, for the opposite party, the Assistant Secretary has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocates for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that, there is deficiency in service on the part the opposite party and that she is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The fact that in the year 1989 the complainant became the member of the opposite party House Building Society and paid the amount towards allotment of site, is admitted.<br /> <br /> 8. In the version, opposite party has contended that, because of the notification of the MUDA, the society had to look for alternative land and accordingly in the year 2005, General Body Meeting was held regarding formation of fresh layout and after purchase of lands at Karegalli and Yedhahalli, the society, is doing all the required process with its best efforts to get the said land fit for formation of a layout with appropriate government approvals and the society had to acquire the land at higher cost. Another contention of the opposite party is, apart from communication of the resolution of the opposite party society of the year 2005, in the year 2007, again the complainant was communicated and in spite of the demands, the complainant failed to pay the required consideration amount.<br /> <br /> 9. As alleged in 9th paragraph of the version, the opposite party society by mentioning required process for formation of layout with reference to the resolution of the General Body Meeting of the year 2005, goes to show that, in fact as contended, no sites are formed. Admittedly, in the year 1989, the complainant became member and paid the amount towards price of the site. This delay of more than 16-17 years itself is sufficient to conclude deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Further, though in paragraph 10 of the version, the opposite party has contended communication of the General Body Meeting resolution and that the complainant failed to pay the required consideration, is not supported by any evidence, except Xerox copy of progress report of the year 2000.<br /> <br /> 10. The complainant has claimed interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and so also compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- alleging that, if really, the opposite party society had allotted a site in the year 1990, it could have fetched more than Rs.2,00,000/- etc.,. In this connection, it is relevant to note that, in the year 1989 i.e., nearly 21-22 years back, the complainant has paid the amount towards allotment of a site. In addition to it, in 5th paragraph of the complaint, specifically the complainant has alleged that, though the opposite party society formed number of sites of different dimensions in two stages in Srirampura and other places and allotted those stages to different members and outsiders ignoring the seniority of the complainant. This allegation has not been specifically denied by the opposite party in the version. That fact is stated by the complainant in her affidavit. The Assistant Secretary of the society who has filed his affidavit, in the 5th paragraph, has stated that, the said allegation are seriously disputed as incorrect. But, it is not the case of the opposite party that, as alleged by the complainant in two stages, the opposite party society did not form layout at Srirampura. The progress report copy produced by the opposite party pertains to third stage. More over, the complainant became member of the society to have a site to be formed at Srirampura, but the opposite party in the version in 9th paragraph has alleged purchase of lands at different villages. Hence, the case put forth by the complainant has to be believed.<br /> <br /> 11. Considering the facts, evidence and discussion made here before the complainant has established deficiency in service on the part of the opposite partY. Accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 12. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,780/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till realization and the amount shall be paid within two months from the date of the order. The particulars of the amount paid are;<br /> Date of Deposit Amount of deposit<br /> 23.10.1989 112.50/-<br /> 23.10.1989 15,780/-<br /> 23.10.1989 2,300/-<br /> 16.01.2003 1,048/-<br /> <br /> 3. Further, the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant the compensation towards mental agony and other inconvenience caused within two months from the date of the order failing which, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a..<br /> 4. Also, the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. 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 7th January 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />