IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 433/09 DATED 01.02.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri. B.V. Kalappa S/o B. Puthaiah R/at Hysadloor village and post, Virajpet Taluk, South Kodagu District.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. N.G. Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The President, The Mysore Ex-Service men’s Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., D.No.4366/B, 11th cross, St. Mary’s Road, N.R. Mohalla, Mysore-570007. <br /> (By Sri.S.A.K., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 20.11.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 09.12.2009<br /> Date of order : 01.02.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 23 Days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint, seeking a direction to the opposite party to allot a site and to grant such other reliefs deemed fit.<br /> <br /> 2. It is alleged in the complaint that, in the year 1994, the complainant had applied to the opposite party, for allotment of a site. On 25.09.1994, a sum of Rs.8,000/- and again on 20.08.1995, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party towards the price of the site. The opposite party did not allot any site to the complainant. On several occasions, the complainant made enquiry and the opposite party went on promising him to allot a site. On 10.12.2007, complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party. Again on 14.04.2008 second legal notice was sent. But returned un-served. The complainant is ready and willing to pay the amount if any. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party in the version has contended that, the complainant has filed the complaint after lapse of 14 years. Then facts are narrated in detail and the substance of the same is that, because of the legal hurdles, under various sale deeds, certain lands were purchased by the society in the names of its members, who executed power of attorney in favour of society enabling to form the layout. However, later in the year 1998, the Assistant Commissioner ordered that, purchase of the lands is void. The opposite party approached the senior counsel for filing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was later dismissed. Hence, it is stated that, the opposite party has committed no deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant has filed his affidavit to prove the facts alleged in the complaint, where as the opposite party has filed his affidavit. Both the parties have produced various documents. We have heard both the learned advocate for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point no. 1:- As noted above reliefs sought by the complainant is to direct the opposite party to allot a site. First of all, to direct the opposite party society to allot a site, the site must be in existence. In the absence of existence of a site, the opposite party cannot be directed to allot any site. Even otherwise, in the absence of existence of site, any direction is given, such order cannot be executable. The court or Forum shall have to pass the orders or decrees, which can be executed. From the records, it is not at all made out by the complainant that, the opposite party society has got sites for allotment. Hence, for this reason the relief sought by the complainant cannot be granted.<br /> <br /> 8. The opposite party in the version, has narrated the facts in detail. Said facts are supported by the documents. Prima-facie, it is made out that, because of legal hurdles, the opposite party society was not able to purchase the land, for formation of the layout and as such, to over come the legal hurdles, certain lands were purchased in the names of the members of the society, who in turn through power of attorney authorized society to form layout. However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered that, the sale deeds are void. As submitted, that order was challenged, but of no use. When these facts are established from the documentary evidence, we are of the opinion that, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party can be attributed.<br /> <br /> 9. During the course of argument, learned advocate for the opposite party submitted that, the present president of the opposite party is ready to handover the presidentship of the society to the complainant, if he is ready to manage the society and help the members of the society. Also, it is submitted that, even the president and other office bearers also have invested huge amount in the society and they are also suffered, because of the legal hurdles. He submits, the society is making all its efforts to sort out the problems and in case it is able to do so, after acquiring the land, layout will be formed and the society could be able to allot the sites to the members. The learned advocate also submitted that, the present society is Ex-servicemen Housing Society and the members are Ex-servicemen, who fought and protected the country, but now nobody is coming forward to protect and help the society and its members. Also, he submits, in case, the society is able to get the land aim and object of the society will be achieved.<br /> <br /> 10. Learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, alternatively, the opposite party may be directed to refund the amount. In the normal course, certainly the Forum could have directed the opposite party to refund the amount. But, as noted here before, prima-facie it has been established that, whatever the society collected the money from its members was utilized to purchase the land and the Assistant Commissioner has held said sales are void. In view of this situation and circumstance, several other aspects needs to be considered and decided, but that cannot be done by this Forum at this stage.<br /> <br /> 11. For the reasons noted above, we are of the opinion that, at present in this proceeding, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. However, we would like to observe that, the complainant is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance at appropriate stage in accordance with law. With this observation, our finding on the point is in negative. <br /> <br /> 12. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 1st February 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />