Date of Filing:17.11.2007<br /> Date of Order:26.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2290 OF 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> Krishnamurthy,<br /> S/o Javaraiah,<br /> R/at No.30/1, I Main,<br /> 16th Cross, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,<br /> K.P. Agrahara,<br /> Bamgalooru-560 023. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Karnataka State Government<br /> “D” Group Employees Central Association (Regd.,), <br /> Multistoried Building,<br /> Dr. Ambedkar Road, <br /> Bangalore-560 001,<br /> Represented by its <br /> President Sri.B.M. Nataraj. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to execute sale deed and compensation.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant has become a member of the opposite party and paid Rs.38,530/- towards allotment of site in Sy.No.25/3 of Sriganda Kavalu, Sunkada Katte Dhakhale, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Banagalore North Taluk. The opposite party has issued Hakku Patra in respect of vacant site under Hakku Patra Serial No.931, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet. The complainant made transactions and correspondence with the opposite party together with request to issue possession certificate and also to execute a valid sale deed in his name. But, on the opposite party goes on postponing the execution of sale deed and in issuance of possession certificate to the complainant on one or the other pretext. When the complainant requested to execute the sale deed and issue possession certificate, the opposite party disclosed that, the site bearing No.931 has been allotted to another member and will allot a different site in different locality on alternative basis. The complainant did not accept the offer made by the opposite party as the complainant need only site No.931 at any cost. The opposite party failed to execute sale deed, the complainant got issued legal notice on 9/8/2007 and the same has been received by opposite party and did not reply to the said notice. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance and filed defence version stating that, the complainant being a member of the opposite party has not come forward to pay the balance amount. The opposite party remind the complainant so many occasions to pay the balance amount and to get the registered sale deed in his favour. The opposite party issued a paper publication through his counsel stating that, in spite of sufficient opportunity given the complainant has not come forward to pay the balance amount and get registered the sale. It is clear that the complainant has not ready and willing to pay the balance amount and there was nothing wrong with the opposite party and it is also clearly mentioned in the paper publication that in case the complainant has not come forward to pay the balance amount within 15 days from the date of publication published in Prajavani dated 7/5/2002. Hence, the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation in the interest of justice and prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Both the parties filed affidavit evidence. Perused the complaint, affidavit and documents. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:- <br /> 1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the <br /> part of the opposite party?<br /> 2) Whether the opposite party can be directed to <br /> execute sale deed in respect of site No.931?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. The complainant is a member of the Karnataka State Government “D” Group Employees Central Association. Complainant is a “D” Group employee under the State Government of Karnataka. He had become member of the opposite party society in the year 1991. He had applied for allotment of site to be formed in Sy.No.25/3 of Srigandada Kavalu, Sunkadakatte. He has paid Rs.13,000/- on 10/9/1991 and again he has paid Rs.13,530/- on 31/7/1996 and on 21/8/1996 complainant has paid Rs.12,000/- to the opposite party society in all he has paid Rs.38,530/- for the site. The complainant has produced respective receipts of payment made by him. The opposite party society has given Hakku Patra dated 21/8/1996. As per this Hakku Patra site No.931, 28th Main, 17th Cross, B-Block, measuring 30 X 40 feet has been allotted to the complainant and it is stated that the complainant has become the Hakkudara of this site and it is also stated in the Hakku Patra the site was given to the possession of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that, the opposite party society in spite of granting Hakku Patra and receiving amount long back has not executed the sale deed in respect of the said site and possession certificate has not been issued. Therefore, the complainant requested the opposite party to execute sale deed and to issue possession certificate. The opposite party society has admitted in the defence version on the above facts. There is absolutely no dispute in respect of the payment of Rs.38,530/- and also there is no dispute in respect of giving of Hakku Patra in favour of complainant. The complainant has got issued legal notice before approaching this Forum. The copy of legal notice was also produced. Notice was served on the opposite party, postal acknowledgment is also produced. The opposite party has not replied to the notice of the complainant. The opposite party has taken defence that the complainant has not come forward to pay the balance amount. Therefore, the possession certificate was not issued in favour of the complainant. But the opposite party has not specified in the defence version what was the balance amount payable by the complainant. The opposite party has not stated that what was the price fixed for the site measuring 30 X 40 feet. The opposite party has not disclosed the payment schedule and total cost of the site. The defence taken by the opposite party is very vague and not clear. Merely stating that the balance amount has not been paid by the complainant that will not establish the fact that complainant was due and therefore, he has not paid the balance amount. On the other hand, the opposite party society itself had granted Hakku Patra on 21/8/1996 and in the Hakku Patra also nothing is mentioned about the balance amount payable by the complainant. In the Hakku Patra it is stated that possession was handed over to the complainant and the complainant was directed not to alienate the site in favour of anybody for five years, when this is the case whereis the question of payment of balance amount. If at all there was any balance amount to be paid by the complainant in that case, the opposite party society could have clearly mentioned in the Hakku Patra. Even the defence version also, opposite party has not specified the balance amount to be paid by the complainant. Therefore, by looking into the defence version, it is clear that there is absolutely no merits or substance in the defence taken by the opposite party. Therefore, same is liable to be rejected. The learned advocate for the opposite party argued that a paper publication was given through advocate Venkateshappa asking the members of the opposite party society to pay the balance amount. The list of 34 members published in the paper. The name of the complainant is also figures at Sl.No.33. In the paper publication also it is not mentioned what was the balance amount payable by the complainant. The opposite party society has not produced the copy of notice or postal acknowledgement to show that the opposite party issued notice to the complainant asking to pay the balance amount. The opposite party has not specified the balance amount payable by the complainant. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the opposite party. The paper publication has no meaning at all. The paper publication has no date. There is no mention in which news paper the publication was published. Whether the publication is published in daily news paper or it is only a pamphlet is not made clear. Insertion of the name of complainant in the publication appears to be afterthought. When the opposite party society had issued Hakku Patra on 21/8/1996 in favour of complainant and in Hakku Patra balance amount payable is not mentioned. Therefore, it is clear that there is no balance amount payable by the complainant. If at all there was any balance amount payable, in that case the opposite party society could not have given Hakku Patra to the complainant. The learned advocate for the complainant vehemently argued that the opposite party is purposely not executing sale deed in favour of complainant even though it had received the entire amount for the site long back. The market values of the sites have increased 100 fold. It is very difficult for the common man to get site at a reasonable price in and around Bangalore due to escalation of prices. The opposite party society wants to allot the site to others by denying the lawful right and claim of the complainant. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that though the opposite party society is formed for the welfare and benefit of “D” group employees, the society has allotted sites to A, B and C group employees also. If this is true then it is very disturbing situation. The opposite party society should follow bylaws of the society. It is not proper on the part of the opposite party society to allot the sites which are for the “D” group employees to other higher group employees. In this case, the complainant having paid Rs.38,530/- long back during the year 1996, he has got lawful claim to get the sale deed registered in his name. Complainant being a “D” group employee, being the member of opposite party society and he has paid the amount long back and opposite party society had also given Hakku Patra in favour of complainant. Under these circumstances, now at this stage the opposite party society cannot avoid to execute the sale deed and issue possession certificate to the complainant as per the Hakku Patra dated 21/8/1996. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very clear that the complainant has established deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The legal notice sent by the complainant to opposite party society has gone unanswered. The complainant ultimately was forced to approach this Forum for getting relief. After perusing of the records and considering the arguments of both the parties, I feel it is just fair and proper to direct the opposite party to execute sale deed in respect of the site No.931 at Srigandadakavalu, Sunkadakatte layout formed in sy.No.25/3 and issue possession certificate. If the above site is not available for registration then opposite party society shall be directed to execute sale deed in respect of alternative site measuring 30 X 40 feet in the same layout. It would be just and proper to order the opposite party society to refund Rs.38,530/- to the complainant along with interest at 18% p.a on the site amount from 1996 till realization along with Rs.5,00,000/- compensation in the event of not executing and registering the sale deed of site in favour of the complainant. The complainant shall be directed to bear the stamp duty and registration charges. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to execute and register the sale deed in respect of site No.931 alternative site measuring 30 X 40 feet formed in Sy.No.25/3 of Srigandadakavalu, Sunkadakatte, Yashavanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk in favour of the complainant. The complainant shall bear stamp duty and registration charges. In the event of not executing the sale deed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant on account of any legal hurdles or reasons in that case, the opposite party society is directed to refund Rs. 38,530/- along with interest at 18% p.a from 1996 till realization and compensation ofRs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. The opposite party society shall comply the order within 60 days from the date of this order. The complainant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the present proceeding from the opposite party. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2008. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> I concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />