COMPLAINT FILED: 29.08.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 18th OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT Nos. 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, <br /> 1924 & 1925/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1920/08<br /> COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1921/08<br /> COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1922/08<br /> COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1923/08<br /> COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1924/08<br /> COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1925/08<br /> COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A. Raja Reddy,<br /> Aged about 61 years,<br /> S/o. Sri. Late. Annaiah Reddy,<br /> R/at No. 641, 1 D Main Road,<br /> Domlur Layout,<br /> Bangalore – 560 071.<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. N. G. Suguna,<br /> Aged about 55 years,<br /> W/o. Sri. A. Raja Reddy,<br /> R/at No. 641, 1 D Main Road,<br /> Domlur Layout,<br /> Bangalore – 560 071.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. K. Satish,<br /> Aged about 29 years,<br /> S/o. Sri. Late Keshava Reddy,<br /> R/at No. 117, Sriram Temple Street, Domlur Village,<br /> Bangalore – 560 071.<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. K.V. Sharada,<br /> Aged about 52 years,<br /> W/o. Sri. Late. Keshava Reddy, <br /> R/at No. 117, Sriram Temple Street, Domlur Village,<br /> Bangalore – 560 071.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. D.S. Badari Narayan,<br /> Aged about 45 years,<br /> S/o. Sri. Late. D.A. Shamanna,<br /> R/at No. 637, 14th Cross,<br /> Domlur Layout,<br /> Bangalore – 560 071.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S. Sampath Kumar,<br /> Aged about 47 years,<br /> S/o. Sri. Late. D.A. Shamanna,<br /> R/at No. 637, 14th Cross,<br /> Domlur Layout,<br /> Bangalore – 560 071.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (G.V. Babu)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Secretary,<br /> The Amara Jyothi House Building Co-operative Society Limited,<br /> “Lakshmi Complex”, <br /> No. 40,3rd Floor, <br /> Opp. Vanivilas Hospital,<br /> K.R. Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 002.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (K.S. Sridhar)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> These are the six complaints filed by the respective complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to provide alternative free site in their other layout or to pay a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 2. As the opposite parties are common, the question involved and relief claimed being the same, in the interest of justice in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning these cases stand disposed of by this common order. <br /> <br /> 3. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under:<br /> Complainants family members are the owners of property bearing Sy. Nos. 66/10, 68/2, 28/4 and 69 measuring 9 acres and 9 guntas situated at Domlur Village. OP being the house building co-operative society contacted the complainants and agreed to purchase the said land at the rate of 1.25 lakhs per acre for the formation of their Domlur 1 Phase layout. At that time OP promised to allot 9 free sites to the complainants family each measuring 40 X 60 feet. Thereafter somehow though complainants family members sold the said land to OP and in turn formed the layout but failed to keep up its promise. On the other hand insisted these complainants to pay Rs.40,950/- each towards the said site measuring 40 X 60 feet. Complainants obliged to pay the said amount, but still OP failed to register the site in their favour. On the other hand sold the said sites to some other 3rd parties in an open market at the cost of its members interest. Complainants being the members of the said society aggrieved by the said arbitrary act of the OP filed the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein the said Writ Petitions were allowed with a direction to OP to allot the sites, if no sites are available, to refund the sital value with 12% interest p.a. Thereafter also OP failed to keep up the promise and failed to obey the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. OP instead of allotting a site sent D.D. only Rs.40,950/- without interest, which complainants refused to accept. During those years there were some vacant sites at the disposal of the OP in the said layout. But they have sold them to 3rd party, the sale deeds produced by the complainants speaks to the said fact. The repeated requests and demands made by these complainants to OP, went in vain. Thus they felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of theirs, they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 4. On appearance, OP filed the version, the defence set out by the OP in all these complaints is almost identical and the same. According to OP the present complainants have initiated the proceedings before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, Chamarajpet, Bangalore. The Joint Registrar was pleased to allow the complaint vide order dated 03.03.2006 directing the OP to register the sites as prayed for by the complainants or in the alternative to return the amount with 18% p.a. interest within 2 months. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order OP preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and those appeals are pending for final adjudication. Though all these facts are well within the knowledge of the complainant, they failed to plead the same in their complaints. There is a suppression of material fact. The approach of the complainants is not fair and honest. As the matter is seized by the Registrar of Co-operative Society, who has got the competency to deal with the matter in a cases of like nature, the present complaints are not maintainable. The other allegations are devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainants filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the each one of these complainants became the member of the OP a house building co-operative society. Of course the contention of the complainant that their family members have sold certain land to the OP for a valid consideration is not otherwise denied by the OP and for the other contention that OP promised to give 9 free sites these is no basis, because there is no proof to that effect. It is also not at dispute that OP formed the Domlur 1 Phase layout carved out of the sy. nos. belonging to the complainants family and in the said layout these complainants sought for allotment of a site. Then each one of these complainants opted to purchase a site measuring 40 X 60 feet and paid Rs.40,950/- to the OP. The documents to that effect are produced. Now the grievance of the complainant is that when OP failed to allot a site and register a site in their favour they preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and obtained an order against the OP, wherein a direction was given to allot a site and register a site if such vacant sites are available. In the event no sites are available OP is directed to refund the amount with 12% interest p.a.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainants have contended that OP failed to comply the said orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. If that is the fact why complainants have not initiated contempt proceedings against the OP for all these years is not known. In another breathe complainants say that in obedience to the said directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka OP sent only sital value of Rs.40,950/- without interest. Hence they refused to accept the same. Thereafter also they would have immediately taken recourse to law to redress their grievance. But since 2006 no such steps are taken. Again there is a carelessness and negligence on the part of the complainants. <br /> <br /> 10. As against this it is contended by the OP that each one of these complainants have filed a complaint before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, who has got the competency and jurisdiction to deal with a disputes like on hand. The complainants were contested, ultimately the said complaints came to be allowed vide order dated 03.03.2006. Wherein the said Registrar of Co-operative Society directed the OP to register a site in their layout as prayed for or in the alternative return the amount with 18% interest within 2 months from the date of order. These facts are not denied by the complainants. Though each one of these complainants are aware of the said proceedings and the considered order being passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Society in their favour, it is not pleaded. What made them to suppress the said fact while filing these complaints is not known. So the conduct of the complainants amounts to abuse of process of law and it is not fair <br /> <br /> 11. It is said he who seeks equity, must do equity and must come with clean hands. But here the approach of the complainants does not appears to be honest. For the convenience sake the complaints filed by these complainants, date of order, sital value paid and the measurement of the site, appeal pending before the KAT are noted below in the chart. <br /> <br /> Complaint No. Complaint to Joint Registrar of Co-op. Soc. Date of Order Cost Paid Appeal No. in KAT Site Measurement<br /> 1920/08 78/2002-03 03.03.06 Rs.40,950/- 571/06 40 X 60<br /> 1921/08 72/2002-03 03.03.06 Rs.40,950/- 587/06 40 X 60<br /> 1922/08 83/2002-03 03.03.06 Rs.40,950/- 597/06 40 X 60<br /> 1923/08 74/2002-03 03.03.06 Rs.40,950/- 586/06 40 X 60<br /> 1924/08 75/2002-03 03.03.06 Rs.40,950/- 585/06 40 X 60<br /> 1925/08 82/2002-03 03.03.06 Rs.40,950/- 584/06 40 X 60<br /> <br /> <br /> 12. The fact that OP being aggrieved with the said impugned order of the Registrar of the Co-operative Society preferred an appeal before the KAT is not otherwise disputed or denied by the complainants. So whole of the matter is seized by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society who has got the jurisdiction to deal with such matters. Complainants would have tought the said appeals before the KAT and got disposed of as early as possible, because those appeals are filed in the year 2006 itself. The fact that those appeals are pending for adjudication is also not at dispute. When that is so, any order that is going to be passed by this Forum will amount to sub-judice. <br /> <br /> 13. Though complainants have got the favourable order in their favour with regard to the prayer now made in these complaints with regard to the allotment of the site, but still what made them to file these complaints is not known. Alternative relief is also given by the said Registrar of Co-operative Society in default of allotment of a site. There appears to be a considered order passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Society. When the appeals are pending before KAT the hands of the OP are tied to comply the said orders. Under such circumstances the allegations of the complainant with regard to deficiency in service appears to be baseless. When complainants have got the equally efficacious relief readily available at their disposal they cannot agitate the same by way of filing these complaints after two and half years i.e. from 03.03.2006. Complainants have to wait for the final decision before the KAT. With these observations we find the complaints are devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint Nos. 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925/2008 are dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> The original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No. 1920/2008 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective file.<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />