Complaint filed on: 17.11.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 27.03.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.2247/2012

DATED THIS THE 27^th MARCH OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Harsha.M.R.

s/o Sri.Ramachandra Rao

R/at no.397, 2^nd B cross,

3^rd stage, 3^rd block, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru-79

By Advocates

M/s.Tilak & Vaidya Associates  

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

Sri.Manjappa,

The President

KSRTC Housing Society ltd.

No.226, 1^st main road,

1^st stage, 5^th phase,

60 feet road, Shivanagar,

West of Chord Road,

Bengaluru-44

By Adv.Sri.J.Kumaraswamy

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service in not refunding his paid amount of Rs.2,70,000/- in connection with the site allotment and thereby has claimed total compensation amount of Rs.4,80,000/-.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that in order to purchase 30x40 feet site at KSR layout, near Bidadi worth Rs.5,50,000/- he became the member no.18-2664 with the Opposite party and paid Rs.2,70,000/- in three instalments through cheques dtd.19.08.10, 12.10.10 and 11.11.10 and waited for more than 1½ years for completion of the layout work as assured by the Opposite party. He was ready with the balance consideration amount and was requesting the Opposite party to execute the sale deed in his favour and ultimately got issued the legal notice dtd.20.06.12 seeking refund of Rs.2,70,000/-. The Opposite party who sent the reply notice dtd.27.06.12 stating that on two occasions 60% of the sites were alloted to its members based on the seniority and awaited for approval of BMRDA for releasing of balance 40% of the site. Hence he got issued another legal notices dtd.19.07.12 & 05.09.12 seeking particulars of the concerned documents. The Opposite party sent notice dtd.17.09.12 inviting him to visit the office on 25.09.12 for inspection of the documents. When he went there, he was made to sit till 6 p,m. without complying the contents of the notice dtd.17.09.12. The Opposite party failed to perform its part of contract and caused loss to him showing extreme careless and negligent attitude and hence this complaint is filed.

          3. The Opposite party has not filed the version and affidavit evidence but has relied on 2 documents marked as Ex-B1 & B2. Complainant has filed the affidavit evidence and has relied on Ex-A1 to A12 documents. Perused the records.

          4. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the deficiency in service by the Opposite party in not returning the paid amount of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest to him ?   
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

5. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          6. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant who became the member of the Opposite party/Housing society as shown in the member card Ex-A4, paid Rs.70,000 (19.08.10), Rs.1 lakh (12.10.10), Rs.1 lakh (11.11.10) wide three receipts Ex-A1 to A3 towards the allotment of site.

          7. It is also undisputed that on 20.06.12, he sent the legal notice wide Ex-A5 and it was replied by the Opposite party wide Ex-A7 dtd.27.06.12.  He sent further legal notices Ex-A9 dtd.19.07.12, Ex-A11 dtd.05.09.12, Ex-A12 dtd.17.09.12 by registered post. Through Ex-A5 notice he had sought back Rs.2,70,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Through Ex-A9 and A11 he had sought for details mentioned in the reply notice within 7 days before proceeding further.

          8. The Opposite party had replied in Ex-A7 dtd.27.06.12 that the BMRDA had released 60% of the site of their layout on 29.08.09 and on 30.06.10 and based on the seniority, the said 60% of the sites were alloted even by executing registered sale deeds. The Opposite party had informed that the efforts of the society to get approval of remaining 40% of the sites were also going on without there being any negligence on their part and the Complainant had also been instructed even through several reminders to pay full consideration amount, so as to maintain seniority in the list and the same was not done by him.  In reply Ex-A12 the Opposite party has informed the Complainant that the progress of the work and completion of the project discussed in the General Body Meeting dtd.02.09.12 could be verified by him without making bald allegations and he could visit the society on 25.09.12 in between 3pm to 5pm for inspection of the documents.

          9. Ex-B1 produced by the Opposite party shows that Rs.1,50,000/- through bank cheque as shown in Ex-B2 dtd.10.12.12 was given to the Complainant with a request to receive the balance amount paid by him after three months.  The said Rs.1,50,000/- was taken by his advocate as endorsed in the order sheet dtd.11.02.13 and the balance of Rs.1,20,000/- on 04.03.13. The receipt of the entire paid amount of Rs.2,70,000/- through forum in February and March 2013 show that the relief no.1 regarding the repayment of Rs.2,70,000/- was complied by the Opposite party. Thereby the main issue is solved. The remaining point to be discussed is whether the Complainant becomes entitled to get compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and the interest on the paid amount with litigation charges.

          10. The Complainant in his affidavit evidence dtd.07.05.13 has admitted that the Opposite party has paid back the amount to him but has not paid the interest or the compensation amount claimed by him and that he has paid the amount to avoid possible order by this forum. The Complainant so far not appeared after filing of his affidavit evidence.

          11. The Complainant has issued notice to the Opposite party as if he is entitled to get back the amount with interest from the Opposite party, without stating about terms & conditions he entered in to with the Opposite party, when he became the member as per Ex-A4. The Opposite party has stated that having the aim of providing sites to the needy members it has become nonprofit organization and the intention of the society is mis used by the Complainant by paying partial amount only and without paying the balance amount to maintain his seniority.  The Complainant ought to have produced the terms & conditions of the society explaining which are the terms violated by the Opposite party and then only to prove the deficiency in its service. Claiming of interest by the Opposite party should be based on the agreement or atleast the default of the Opposite party. The Opposite party had sought the presence of the Complainant describing him as liberty of a member to inspect the proceedings of the GBM held on 02.09.12 and he was asked to appear on 25.09.12 in between 3pm to 5pm for verification of the details and the documents he sought for. The Complainant has not produced any supporting documents to show that he was present in the office for the verification of the documents.  The Complainant who approached this forum has the onus to prove the allegations made against the Opposite party. His allegations are not proved by the cogent evidence.  The allegations and the counter allegations and the contents of the legal notice are also of no use to upheld the contentions of the Complainant. The rights and the liabilities of the member and the society of this case depends upon the terms & conditions and non-production of the terms & conditions by the Complainant shows that Complainant has suppressed the true facts before the forum. Thereby the Complainant has failed to establish the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. Repayment of the deposited amount by the Opposite party to the Complainant does not mean that there is deficiency in the service of the society.  Hence the Complainant has failed to establish the alleged deficiency and accordingly the Consumer Dispute no.1 is answered in the negative.

          12. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 27^th day of March 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party/s