NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1469-1470/2010

SRI RAMAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (SOUTH) & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. N Shantha - Opp.Party(s)

MR. GIRISH ANANTHAMURTHY

17 May 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 19 Apr 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1469-1470/2010
(Against the Order dated 15/12/2009 in Appeal No. 3919,3920/2009 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. SRI RAMAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (SOUTH) & ANR.Lakshinarasimha Complex, No. 40/1, 4th Main Road, V.V. MohallaMysore-02Karnataka2. SUBHASHINI B.N., SECRETARY SRI RAMAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (SOUTH)Sri Lakshinarasimha Complex, No. 40/1, 4th Main Road, V.V. MohallaMysore - 02Karnataka ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Smt. N Shantha113, 6th Main, 5th Block, JayanagarBangaloreKarnataka2. M. SANJEEVA SHETTYSri Lakshinarasimha Complex, No. 40/1, 4th Main Road, V.V. MohallaMysore - 02Karnataka ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENT
For the Appellant :Ms.Vaijayanthi Girish, Advocate for MR. GIRISH ANANTHAMURTHY, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 17 May 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Delay of 18 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

 

           Respondent/complainant became a member of the petitioner society on 24.10.2006 by paying the requisite fee and share amount.  Thereafter he paid three instalments of Rs.2,40,000/-, 1,10,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- on 1.11.2006, 29.10.2007 and 19.11.2008 respectively.  Last instalment was yet to be paid.  As layout had not been developed, the respondent asked the petitioner to refund the amount deposited by him along with interest.  Petitioner refused to grant interest, as there was no agreement between the parties to grant the interest. 

Being aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed.  Petitioner was directed to refund the sum of Rs.4,51,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18%.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of costs.

Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission has upheld the order passed by the District Forum.

Four years have passed by.  Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to say as to within how much time the site would be developed.  Assurance given to the respondent was that the site shall be allotted within six months but nothing has been done.  Fora below have rightly directed the petitioner to refund the amount deposited by the respondent along with interest.  No merits.  Dismissed.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT