Date of Filing :27.09.2022
Date of Disposal : 28.10.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 28.10.2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No.1941/2022 to 1943/2022
Karnataka Legislature Secretariat
Employees Housing Co-operative
Society Ltd., (Regd.)
No.130, 1st Floor
Legislature Home-1
Bengaluru-560 001
Represented by its President
Sri Anantha A
(By Mr Devaraja A, Advocate)
(Appellant is same in all these Appeals) Appellant
-Versus-
APPEAL No.1941/2022
Mr Dinesh Babu
Aged about 53 years
S/o M.S.Ramaiah
Residing at No.216
2nd Floor, Vidhana Soudha
Bengaluru-560 001 Respondent
(By Mr K Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate)
APPEAL No.1942/2022
Mr Ravi Kumar G.K
Aged about 50 years
S/o Krishnegowda
Residing at FA No.501
Golden Grand Apartments
Yeshwanthpura
Bangalore-560 022 Respondent
(By Mr K Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate)
APPEAL No.1943/2022
Mr Abhishek Kuklarni
Aged about 37 years
S/o Lakshman Sindagi
Residing at No.B-1006
Kolte Patil Mirabilis
Horamavu Agara Road
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore-560 043 Respondent
(By Mr K Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate)
-: COMMON ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:
1. These Appeals are filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 19.08.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.552/2021, 600/2021 and 594/2021 respectively on the file of Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short, the District Commission).
2. The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the District Forum.
3. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers and heard learned counsels.
Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be:
Whether impugned order dated 19.08.2022 passed in CC No. 552/2021, 600/2021 and 594/2021 respectively on the file of Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?
4. All these complaints filed by Complainant are clubbed together to record a Common findings, as the relief sought are also of similar in nature. Learned counsel for Appellant/OP submits order of the District Commission is wholly erroneous and would contend Appellant is ready to refund the sital advance amount remitted by respective complainant without any interest, since respective complainant in their membership application as well in their site application have agreed to take back the site advance amount from the Society without any interest in the event they would not get a site in the 3rd Stage, Agrahara Layout. Learned counsel further submits that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, Bengaluru has passed an order on 12.03.2021 in Dispute No.JRB/KALM-29C/12/2020-21 directing the Developer to refund a sum of Rs.24,66,01,915/- to compensate the remaining extent of land to be given by him at 3rd Stage, Agrahara Layout and at Doddajala Layout which is held improper. Since, the developer has to give the remaining extent of land at 3rd Stage, Agrahara Layout and that land at Doddajala Layout to the Appellant Society. Learned counsel further submits Appellant Society has to get 1,99,480 sq. ft at 3rd Stage, Agrahara Layout from the developer, but as on the date the Developer has pleaded his inability to give the remaining land to such an extent to the Society, since, in 5 acre of land situated in Sy.No.14/1, he had proposed to form 3rd stage Agrahara Layout, is pending in O.S.No.514/2009 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District and in such circumstances, he would contend impugned order passed by District Commission, to refund the amount deposited along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a is contrary to the facts and law is liable to be set aside. On the contrary, learned counsel for respective Complainant/Respondent would submit that the District Commission in exercise of its wisdom awarded most reasonable interest at 9% p.a and even no amount of compensation is awarded for rendering deficiency in service on the part of OP Society and also awarded, a meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- alone is awarded, which in our view does not call for any interference of the Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memo.
At this stage Learned counsel for the respective Respondent/Complainant has brought to the notice of the Commission that the Society has executed a Sale Deed on 08.04.2021 in favour of Smt.Shilpa A, W/o S M Deepak in respect of residential site bearing No.88 measuring 1006 sq. ft situated in Sy.No.12/2 and 14/2A(P) of Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and yet another Sale Deed is also executed by Appellant Society on 22.01.2021 in favour of Smt.Rachamma V.Bomman W/o Veerupakshappa Bomman in respect of site bearing No.136 also situated in Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Thus, these two sites shown to be situate in the same lay out and the sale deeds are executed in the recent past for the reasons best known, suffice to hold that all is not well in the society. In such circumstances of the case, contention of OP that sites were not available in Agrahara Village, Yelahanka and they are ready to allot site in a layout situated within the vicinity of Devanahalli, could not be acceptable at all and the complainant cannot wait for indefinite period and the OP has no right to withheld the hard earned money deposited by the middle class people of the society are bound to return along with interest.
5. Let us examine documents marked as Ex-R1 to R5, they are copy of Membership application of complainant, copy of application of complainant for site, copy of statement showing payment of amount by the complainant, copy of the order of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society dated 12.03.2021 and copy of order of stay of Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.15654/2020 dated 01.09.2020. It is true that in Ex-R1 reverse page of Membership of application of Complainant in Para 3, under declaration complainant has declared in the event of non allotment of site he will seek refund of the amount without interest and he will not make society liable for any reason. In our view, though such printed declaration could be seen, facts remain that the conduct of the society as found from enquiry and as shown by the respective complainant that even in the recent past, they have executed registered sale deed in the same layout, as such in order to enforce 3rd declaration, found in the reverse page of membership application, society also has to treat all members equally failing which, such declaration has to be held waived of or could not be enforceable under law.
6. It is true that in O.S No.514/2009 on 05.03.2014 on the file II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in a case filed by Mr.Omar Farook against Sri Varadaraju and others issued ad-interim temporary injunction order against Mr Varadaraj and others. It is also true that Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, Bengaluru in Dispute No.JRB/KALM-29C/12/2020-21 in the case between Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society Vs Proprietor, M/s Jaya Surya Developers and others to refund Rs.24,66,01,915/- in favour of society without any interest within 12 months and to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a beyond 12 months till realisation and the said order passed by Joint Registrar is stayed by Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.14654/2021 (CS-RES). In our view, either the order of Joint Registrar or the order of the learned counsel Civil Judge and the order of Hon’ble High Court did not come to the assistance of the society to deny the payment of interest on the amount withheld by them, since the disputes inter-se between parties in the civil case and the case pending on the file of Hon’ble High Court is nothing to do with the dispute raised by the respective complainant seeking refund of their money withheld for an indefinite period.
7. The Consumer Complaints were raised during 2021 and the respective complainant became member of OP Society during 2006. They have paid their hard earned money to the society. In Complaint No.552/2021 has became member of the society during 2005..
Mr Dinesh Babu had paid Rs.50,000/- seeking allotment of site measuring 30’X 40’ he has paid Rs.75,000/- on 11.02.2005, Rs.2 lakhs on 03.10.2006, Rs.1,25,000/- on 25.10.2006, Rs.5,40,000/- on 03.08.2013 and Rs.5,22,000/- on 01.12.2014. Thus he has paid in all Rs.15,12,000/- to OPs failed to allot site. According to complainant, the market value of the site in the said layout was Rs.50 lakhs.
Mr Ravi Kumar J K, the complainant in CC No.600/2021 became member of the Society in 2005 and had paid Rs.50,000/- seeking allotment of site measuring 30’X40’, he has paid Rs.75,000/- on 25.02.2005, Rs.1,50,000/- on 08.03.2006, Rs.1,75,000/- on 14.09.2006, Rs.2 lakhs and he has paid Rs.15,12,000/- seeking an allotment of site measuring 30’X40’ since OP has failed to allot site with no option raised a consumer compliant.
The complainant in CC No.594/2021 Mr Abhishek Kukarni became member of the society and during 2005, he has paid Rs.50,000/- as an advance seeking allotment of site measuring 30’ X 40’ it is found from enquiry, he has paid Rs.15,12,000/- to OP Society.
8. Thus all the above complainants have paid their hard earned huge money seeking allotment of site with fond hope to build their dream house in the layout formed by OP waited till 2021 have raised Consumer Compliant seeking compensation, since, such sites presently are valued at least Rs.50 lakhs and the DCDRC while passing the order has taken into consideration the hardship of OP society awarded most reasonable interest at 9% p.a and awarded meagre amount towards litigation costs by giving directing to OP to comply the order within 60 days, failing which, shall pay interest at the rate of 11% p.a on the awarded amount which in our view does not call for any interference.
9. The contention of the Appellant/OP that they are ready to allot site in their another layout situated near Bengaluru International Airport area in Kudurugere Village, Jalahalli hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk is not a ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the DCDRC. In such view of the matter, OP Society having been failed to allot sites to respective complainant in Agrahara Layout near Yelahanka has to be held rendered deficiency in service is liable to refund the amount deposited by the respective complainant along with interest awarded by DCDRC. Hence, proceed to dismiss the Appeal Nos.1941 to 1943/2022 with no order as to costs.
10. Amount in deposit in all these appeals is directed to be transfer to the District Commission for the needful.
11. Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned for their information.
12. Keep the original of this Order in Appeal No.1941/2022 and copy thereon in the rest of the Appeals.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*s
