BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER
APPEAL NO.1849/2022
M/s. Karnataka Telecom Department
Employees Co-Operative Society
Amims Castel No.706, 1st Floor
Near CBI Road, HMT Layout, … Appellant/s
RT Nagar post, Bengaluru-560 032
Rept. By its President/Secretary
Sri.V.J.K.Bakthavakchalam
(By Sri.D.S.Lokesh, Advocate)
-Versus-
Sri.Deepak A.Shah,
Aged about 45 years,
C/o Ganesh Industrial Corporation,
No.25/1, EV Lane, … Respondent/s
Thigalarapet, SP Road Cross,
Bengaluru-560 002
(By Sri.Prakash.M.H, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party/Appellant preferred this Appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru (Urban) dated 25-7-2022 in Complaint No.363/2021 which directed this Appellant to refund Rs.4,80,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the Opposite Party shall pay interest @12% p.a. on the above said amount and submits the complainant become member of this Opposite Party society and applied for allotment of sites measuring 30 X 40ft. in the project as “Sukheebhava” at Attibele, Sarjapur road, Bengaluru and he has paid total sum of Rs.4,80,000/-. After payment of the said amount, the complainants requested for allotment of the sites, but the Opposite Parties deliberately not allotted the site and postpone the allotment of site for the one or the other reason. The complainant made several representations either to allot the site or to refund the amount paid. But the Opposite Party kept quiet without considering the requests made by the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant issued legal notice and called upon the Opposite Party to refund the amount paid towards allotment of site along with interest and even in spite of legal notice the Opposite Party not replied the legal notice. Subsequently, the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and sought for relief of the refund.
2. After trial, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to refund the above said amount. In fact, the complainant becomes the member for allotment of sites measuring 30 X 40ft.sq. to be formed under the layout named “Sukheebhava” project at Sarjapur road, Bengaluru. The Opposite Party society has acquired 261 acres of land, but the complainant failed to pay the balance sale consideration. The formation of the site is time consuming and requires approval from various Government Authorities. The delay in formation of the sites are not due to any intentional, it is only due to approval from the side of authorities. Hence, they could not allot the sites and register the same in the name of complainant and the complainant has not paid the balance amount. The complainant is not come forward to the pay the balance amount. In spite of that he had filed false complaint alleging deficiency in service. The District Commission without considering the said defence has allowed the complaint and directed this Opposite Party to refund the amount with interest. In fact they ready to allot the sites, hence prayed for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard from both sides.
4. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order passed by the District consumer Commission, it is noticed that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.4,80,000/-. The complainant constrained to file the complaint for allotment and registration of the site. This appellant had not shown any material to show that subsequent layout/project is developed and ready for registration. In the absence of such materials, we cannot believe the arguments submitted by the learned advocate for appellant. When the layout was not developed in spite of sufficient time taken, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount paid towards the allotment of site. The District Commission after considering the evidence had directed this appellant to refund the amount paid with interest to the complainant. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. We do not find any merits in the appeal. As such the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the District Commission is confirmed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The Appeal No.1849/2022 is hereby dismissed.
The impugned order 25-7-2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Urban) in CC.No.363/2021 is confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
