Date of Filing:18.06.2008<br /> Date of Order:27.11.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1355 OF 2008<br /> H.M. Girish<br /> S/o. H.M. Somashekarappa<br /> No. 992/1-1, 1st Main, 12th Cross<br /> M.C. Layout, Vijayanagar<br /> Bangalore 560 040 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> The Karnataka State Judicial Employees<br /> Housing Co-operative Society Ltd.<br /> 2nd Floor, 1st Main, Sheshadripuram<br /> Bangalore 560 020<br /> Represented by its Secretary Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to the opposite party to refund Rs. 6,58,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. <br /> The facts of the case are that opposite party is a co-operative society formed for the benefit of its members. Opposite party for providing house sites to its members formed layout at Thalagattapura, Kanakapura Road. Complainant being the member of opposite party paid Rs. 6,58,000/- through demand draft towards balance of the site charges. Opposite party issued receipt No. 6303 dated 07.12.2004. Since, site was refused complainant demanded for the refund. As opposite party failed and refused to refund the amount complainant issued notice dated 11.04.2008 and 20.05.2008. Even though notice was duly served the opposite party failed to refund the amount. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party has put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed. In the defence version all the allegations made in the complaint are denied. It is submitted that writ petitions have been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon’ble High Court has stayed allotment of sites at Thalagattapura, Bangalore. It is also submitted by the opposite party that S. Suresh Kumar, Secretary has been kept under suspension for various charges. The enquiry is under progress. The claim of the complainant depends upon the outcome of the enquiry and the writ petitions pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidences are filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> “1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the opposite party can be directed to pay the amount paid by the complainant”<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that he paid Rs. 6,58,000/- through demand draft to the opposite party for allotment of site. Opposite party received the said amount and receipt No. 6303 dated 07.12.2004 was issued. But site was not allotted to him. The complainant demanded for refund. The complainant made application in Right to Information Act to know the credit of the amount. Opposite party had given letter informing the complainant that opposite party has received the amount. Complainant made demand to refund the amount. Since, opposite party filed to pay the amount complainant issued notice demanding amount. The complainant has produced copy of the D.D. which is for Rs. 6,58,000/-. The complainant also produced receipt of the opposite party society dated 07.12.2004. This receipt is also for Rs. 6,58,000/-. This receipt is issued by the opposite party society on the printed receipt form of the opposite party society. This receipt is having round seal of opposite party society. The complainant has produced letter of opposite party society dated 02.01.2008. In this letter it is clearly stated on perusal of cash book of the society sum of Rs. 6,58,000/- was credited to the account of opposite party society. By this letter of the opposite party it is clear that the complainant has paid Rs. 6,58,000/- through D.D. to opposite party society and the amount has reached to the opposite party society. The complainant has produced the copy of legal notice. The complainant has also produced letter of the Canara Bank, Magadi Road, Bangalore. This letter confirms that complainant has purchased D.D. for Rs. 6,58,000/- on 07.12.2004, D.D. No. 502628 to be payable to Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society. Admittedly, the opposite party society has not allotted site to the complainant, even though the society has received Rs. 6,58,000/- from the complainant. Therefore, this is clear case of deficiency of service. The complainant now wants refund of the amount with interest. The request of the complainant is quite justified. The complainant does not want any site. He wants relief of refund of the amount paid by him. The opposite party society having received the amount from the complainant through D.D and D.D. was taken in the name of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., naturally, opposite party society is bound to return the amount with interest. In the defence version it has been stated that writ petitions have been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has stayed the allotment of sites at Thalagattapura 2nd Stage, Bangalore. The filing of writ petitions by members of the society is nothing to do with the present case. Admittedly, the present complainant is not claiming or direction for allotment of site through the society at Thalagattapura or any other layout. Therefore, the stay order granted by the Hon’ble High Court will not come in the way of refund of the amount paid by the complainant. The writ petition filed by the member of the society is nothing to do with the present complaint. The other defence taken by the opposite party society is that the then Secretary, S. Suresh Kumar has been kept under suspension for various charges and enquiry against him is under progress. Again, the complainant is nothing to do with the suspension of Suresh Kumar and enquiry initiated against him. The said matter is internal problem of the opposite party society. The opposite party society cannot escape from its liability to refund the amount paid by the complainant on the ground that the then Secretary of the Society Suresh Kumar has suspended for various charges. Taking into consideration of the defence version there is absolutely no merit in the defense of the opposite party. The complainant has proved and established payment of Rs. 6,58,000/- to the opposite party society through demand draft and opposite party society has not allotted any site to the complainant. Therefore, complainant has demanded refund of his amount. This prayer of the complainant is quite justified and proper. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be allowed. The opposite party society shall be directed to refund the amount with interest. The Hon’ble National Commission and State Commission in several cases are awarding interest at 18% p.a. Therefore, I feel in this case also it would be just, fair and proper to award 18% interest p.a. to the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party society is directed to refund Rs. 6,58,000/- to the complainant along with 18% interest p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 7.12.2004 till the date of payment / realisation.<br /> 7. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.<br /> 8. The opposite party society is directed to comply this order within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> CV<br />