BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 386/2015

V/s

ORDER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER

1.      This is a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in not allotting the site inspite of receiving the amount, hence, prayed for payment of Rs.9 lakhs along with interest, compensation and costs.

2.      The averments in the complaint are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that on 14.03.2006 he became a member of Syndicate Bank Retired Employees Welfare Society by paying the membership fee vide receipt No.226 and subsequently paid Rs.9 lakhs for allotment of site measuring 40x60 feet on different dates.  The Opposite Party promised that the entire project will be completed within a span of 8 months to avoid any delayed escalation costs.  But, it has been more than nine years since the payment of the last installment, he is not yet obtain the site.  The Opposite Party had been sending notices for the Annual General Body meeting till 2012 and had been assuring in the meetings that the allotment process would be concluded very soon, but, they have not done so far.  On 17.06.2015 the complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party requesting to refund the amount paid with interest, but, no reply from them.  The Opposite Party by giving false promises had misused the amount paid by the complainant for allotment of site.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      After service of notice by this Commission, one Mr. V.Seshu, advocate appeared and filed vakalath on behalf of Opposite Party on 06.03.2018, but, not filed version within the stipulated period as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  Subsequently, on 04.06.2018, advocate for Opposite Party files an IA u/s 151 of CPC along with affidavit seeking permission to file version after a lapse of three months.  The complainant objected and contended that the version filed by the Opposite Party cannot be looked into as the Opposite Party failed to file the version within 45 days and also quoted a citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2016 (SC) 86 in the matter between New India Assurance Company Limited v/s Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, time for filing the version cannot be accepted.  Keeping open the IA, the matter was posted for affidavit evidence of the complainant.  The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence on 04.02.2019 and marked documents at Ex.C1 to C7.  Subsequently, the matter is posted for affidavit evidence of Opposite Party and marking of documents.  Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Opposite Party has not filed their affidavit evidence.  Heard the arguments of complainant.

4.      On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

(i)       Whether the complaint is deserves to be allowed?

           (ii)      What order?

          5.      The findings to the above points are;

                   (i)       Affirmative

                   (ii)      As per final order

REASONS

6.      On going through the pleadings, affidavit and documents, we noticed that the complainant on 14.03.2006 became a member vide membership bearing No.GEN/SB/60/06 of Syndicate Bank Retired Employees Welfare Society by paying membership fee vide receipt No.226 for allotment of 40x60 feet residential site in general category and paid Rs. 9 lakhs in three instalments as mentioned below;

(i)   Receipt No.212 dt.15.03.2006 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

(ii)  Receipt No.1023 dt.09.06.2006 for Rs.3,00,000/-.

(iii) Receipt No.197 dt.09.09.2006 for Rs.4,00,000/-.

7.      On perusal of the order sheet, we noticed that the Opposite Party has filed an IA seeking permission to file version after a lapse of three months.  In our opinion, he has to file the version within 45 days as per Sec.38 (a) of Consumer Protection Act.  Moreover, the complainant has relied on the citation of the Hon’ble Apex Court which is applicable to the case in hand.  Hence, in our opinion, the IA filed by the Opposite Party u/s 151 of CPC is rejected vide Order dt.04.06.2018.  Moreover, the Opposite Party filed such IA and kept quiet.  From 04.06.2018, the Opposite Party and his advocate also absent and also not filed affidavit evidence.  Hence, we cannot consider the objection filed by the Opposite Party along with IA.  Moreover not filing affidavit evidence shows that the Opposite Party has accepted the averments of the complaint.

8.      Perused the receipt produced by the complainant, letters of Syndicate Bank Retired Employees Welfare Society and notice.  The contentions of the complainant that he became a member of the Opposite Party Society and paid Rs. 9 lakhs to the Opposite Party Society for a residential site measuring 40x60 feet and even after receiving the huge amount, the Opposite Party failed to complete the project within eight months as per the promise till today has to be believed and accepted.  Moreover, the Opposite Party has not filed their objection within 45 days and also not filed affidavit evidence which shows the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party has accepted the allegations of the complainant.  Moreover it is evidence that the complainant has received Rs.4,50,000/- during the pendency of the complaint.

9.      Taking into consideration of facts, evidence on record and discussion made here, the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party has been proved.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The complaint is allowed.

The Opposite Party is directed to pay a balance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 9% p.a. from 09.09.2006, till realization.

The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.

Forward free copies to both the parties. 

      Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

MEMBER                                           JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*