BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JUNE, 2023

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER

APPEAL NOS.1848/2022

1.      Karnataka Telecom Department

  Employees Co-Operative Society

  Amims Castel No.706, 1^st Floor

CBI Road, HMT Layout,                             … Appellant/s

RT Nagar post, Bengaluru-560 032

Rept. By its President

Sri.V.J.K.Bakthavakchalam

2.      Karnataka Telecom Department

Employees Co-Operative Society

  Amims Castel No.706, 1^st Floor

CBI Road, HMT Layout,                 

RT Nagar post, Bengaluru-560 032

Rept. By its Secretary

Sri.B.S.Manjunath                          

(By Sri.D.S.Lokesh, Advocate)

-Versus-

Sri.Ramaiah S/o Karechowdappa,

Aged about 73 years,

R/at Chowdeshwari Nilaya,

No.149, 10^th Cross,

Vidyanagara, Tumkur-572 103

(By Sri.G.S.Ravishankar, Advocate)

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Opposite Parties/Appellants preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru (Urban) dated 1-8-2022 in Complaint No.171/2020 which directed these appellants to refund Rs.4,80,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective payment till realization and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. Failing which, the appellants shall pay interest @11% p.a. after expiry of 60 days from this date till realization and submits the complainant become member of this Opposite Party society and applied for allotment of site measuring 30 X 40ft. in Sukheebhava layout at Indalbele village, Bengaluru Rural District and he paid total sum of Rs.4,80,000/-. After payment of the said amount, the complainant requested for allotment of the site, 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 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 these appellants to refund the above said amount. In fact, the complainant becomes the member for allotment of site measuring 30 X 40ft.sq. in the layout named “Sukheebhava layout” at Indalbele village, Bengaluru Rural District. The Opposite Party society has acquired 26 acres of land in the year 2007.  The appellant society has allotted the sites on the basis of seniority. 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. 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 these Opposite Parties to refund the amount with interest. In fact they ready to allot the site, 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 paid an amount of Rs.4,80,000/-. The complainant constrained to file the complaint for allotment and registration of the site. These appellants had not shown any material to show that subsequent layout 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 complainants are entitled to get refund of the amount paid towards the allotment of site. The District Commission after considering the evidence had directed these appellants to refund the amount paid with interest along with compensation 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.1848/2022 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.  

The impugned order 1-8-2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Urban) in CC.No.171/2020 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