BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 06^TH JULY 2022

ORDER

SRI.H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER

1. This complainant has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of C.P.Act 1986 seeking following reliefs against OP to refund amount of Rs.9,42,000/- along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of payment  till realization along with compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation, Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages,  mental agony and for such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

The  father of the complainant was an employee of   retired from service of BEML company. The OP society  given provision to apply  for obtaining a site  to the ex-employees family members and on acquaintance the complainant being the daughter of Ravikeethi, ex-employee of BEML company  applied for obtaining site from the OP society. In this regard the complainant  paid sum of Rs.9,42,000/- to the OP society  for allotment of site wide membership  no.ALF-558 complainant made payment  from 14.06.2006 to 11.10.2006. Further the complainant  has paid above said amount  for allotment of site from the OP society in the layout formed in 10^th “A” stage layout, Vaderahalli, Mathahalli, Alur, Dasanapura hobli, Bengaluru. Inspite of payment made by the complainant the OPs have neither repaid amount and neglected to allot the site to the  complainant. Hence, the complainant alleges deficiency of service on the part of OPs and have filed the present complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed version. In the version the OPs have contended that  the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

4.  As  per section 29-G(4) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and Rule 14-AM of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, the Chief Executive officer is the person to sue or be sued on behalf of the OP-2 society and the complainant filed the present complaint against the president of OP-2 society, which is not maintainable.

5.  As against the president and OPs also contended that  as per section 29-F(2) of   Karnataka Co-operative societies Act 1956, the president or chairman shall preside over the meetings of the board of the society its sub-committee as well as general meetings of the society.

6. Further, the OPs has to acquire land  and form the layout and distribute sites to the members on deposit and  seniority basis subject to approval of by the Registrar of Co-operative societies from the department of Co-operation  and BDA and also from the concerned authorities. The permanent  employees of BEML Company  can enroll as members of OP-2 society  upto March 1999, but the byelaws of OP was amended on 17.03.1999 by providing to enroll other than the employees of BEML factory or  his or her family member may be admitted as associate members. As such the complainant became the associate member of the OP society and they have made payment for allotment of site at Vaderahalli, Mathahalli, Alur, Dasanapura hobli, i.e. 10^th ‘A’ stage layout by remitting sum of Rs.100/- towards share amount and made payment of Rs.9,42,000/- towards site  amount.

7. Further, the OPs contended that OP society has taken up the work at  10 ‘A’   stage  and already allotted about 300 sites to its members and  the remaining layout is under progress, but due to COVID-19 they were not able to complete the layout, hence there is delay and another layout is completed, therefore ready to allot the sites infavour of the complainant, but till such time the complainant  has to  wait for the allotment. The contentions of the said OPs that the complaint is not sustainable in the eyes of law and   claims to reject the complaint.

8. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and marked Exhibit P1 to P6 and closes her side. The OP also filed affidavit evidence and marked Exhibits R1 to R4 and closes their side. Complainant filed written arguments. The OP has  argued and filed memo with citations.

9.  Heard. Perused records.  

10.  The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

11. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Affirmative.

      Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.   

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

12.  Point No.1 & 2: It is admitted fact by both parties that the complainant had become a associate member of OP society and become a member by paying subscription fee of Rs.100/- vide membership no.ALP no.558 and after becoming the member of association of OP society. The complainant  has paid  Rs.9,42,100/- and OP has assured the complainant that they are going to allot sites formed by the OP society in Vaderahalli, Mathahalli, Alur, Dasanapura hobli, i.e. 10^th ‘A’ stage layout. After  complainant by making payment  of Rs.9,42,100/-. OP neither allotted the site nor refunded amount to the complainant. The complainant  made several requests, but OP till today neither allotted  site to the complainant nor refunded amount to the complainant, but further more OP society contends that the complainant has to wait till she gets seniority  list for allotment of site  to ascertain whether OP society allotted sites to other allottees. Further more the complainant  has made payment  to the OP society and the receipts produced by the complainant  shows that the president of the society has signed the said documents and  demand notices  and the demand notices dt.22.09.2017 and 09.03.2019 depicts that notices were issued by the president of the OP society. Further more OP contended that the president of the OP society is not liable for the present proceedings, but on perusal of the payment receipts it depicts that the president has received the amount on behalf of OP society. Such being the case, the president cannot be party to the proceedings holds no water. Further the OP also contended that the complaint  is not maintainable  and is not well within time. Further the complainant  has booked for allotment  of site and has made payment, but, till today OP has neither allotted site nor refunded amount. Hence, it is presumed that there is continuous cause of action till allotment of the site or refund of the amount. Hence, contention taken by the OP holds no water.   Further keeping  money without allotment of site for more than 15 years   amounts to deficiency of service  on the part of the OP and non refunding of the amount also amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence, the complainant is entitled for  the reliefs. Hence, we answer the point no.1 & 2 in the  affirmative.

13.  Point no.3:- The OP is liable to refund Rs.9,42,100/- with interest  at 6% p.a. from the date of payment till realization. OP is also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. In view of the discussions made above and findings given on point Nos.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.9,42,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of payment till realization and amount of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. The OP shall refund the amount within 30 days from  the date of this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest at 8% p.a. after expiry of this date.
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 6^th  day of July, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :