CC Filed on 04.01.2011
Disposed on 23.06.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 23rd day of June 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 02/2011
Between:
Smt. S.K. Sunitha, D/o. Krishne Gowda, W/o. Chandre Gowda, Aged about 34 years, House Wife, ‘Mathru Nilaya’ Ramakrishna Layout, Srinivasapura. (By Advocate Sri. K.R. Srinivasaiah & others ) V/S 1. The President, (Sri. K.N. Markondappa) BEML House Buildings Co-operative Society, BEML Layout, Manjunatha Krupa, 1st Main Road, C. Byregowda Nagara, Kolar. 2. The Secretary, (Sri. M. Venkate Gowda), BEML House Buildings Co-operative Society, BEML Layout, Manjunatha Krupa, 1st Main Road, C. Byregowda Nagara, Kolar. | ….Complainant |
Office at: The BEML House Buildings Co-operative Society, No. 524, Old Tile Factory Layout, (in front of APMC Gowdown) Railway Station Road, Pathanjali Nagara, Kolar. (By Advocate Sri. A. Lakshmi Narayana & others) | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to allot a site measuring 60 X 40 feet in favour of complainant with costs and compensation, etc.,
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant is an associate member of BEML House Building Co-operative Society, Kolar which is represented by the President and the Secretary (i.e. OPs) hereinafter described as OP-Society. The OP-Society is established for rendering service to its primary members who are employees of Barath Earth Movers Limited, K.G.F. The main object of the Society is to provide sites and houses to its primary members by forming layouts and constructing houses. It is alleged that the OP-Society extended its service for providing sites and houses to associate members also.
The complainant being a house wife obtained associate membership with OP-Society on 06.01.2006 and on the same day paid Rs.24,845/- towards initial amount for allotting a site measuring 60 X 40 feet from the layout to be formed by OP-Society. It is alleged that the complainant was ready to pay the balance amount for allotment of site but the OP-Society dragged the matter for one or other reason and ultimately the OP-Society allotted the sites to some primary members ignoring the seniority of complainant. Further it is alleged that inspite of issue of legal notice the OP-Society failed to comply the demand of complainant.
3. The OP-Society appeared through Counsel and filed version. It contended that the OP-Society was formed to provide sites and to accommodate for houses to its members who are employees of BEML, K.G.F and it admitted that later it decided to extend the said benefit to associate members who are not the employees of BEML, K.G.F. It admitted that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.24,845/- as advance for allotment of a site but it denied that the measurement of site applied was 60 X 40 feet. It contended that the OP-Society is developing a layout for the benefit of the members who are BEML employees and the first preference should be given to those members and thereafter if the sites are available those sites would be allotted to the associate members and if associate members could not be provided sites in the present layout their demand would be met in the next layout to be formed. Therefore it contended that ignoring the seniority of complainant any site was not allotted to other members. Further it contended that the OP-Society is ready to refund the amount paid by complainant, if the complainant is not interested to wait till the site is allotted. It is contended that the legal notice was suitably replied by OP-Society and the said reply was served on the complainant. Therefore the OP-Society prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed her affidavit in support of her allegations contained in the complaint. The case was posted for the evidence of OP. At this stage the complainant orally expressed her intention to receive back the amount with interest atleast at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment. In view of this fact the OP-Society submitted that it has no oral evidence. The Learned Counsel for OP-Society submitted that the interest may be awarded at 6%p.a. as the OP-Society had to face several litigations before forming the layout. He also contended that as per the bye-law of the OP-Society sites cannot be allotted to associate members but it should be allotted only to members who are the employees of BEML.
5. The following points are for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved that there is
deficiency in service by OP-Society?
Point No.2: If point No.1 is held in affirmative, to which reliefs
the complainant is entitled to?
Point No.3: To what order?
6. After considering the records and submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: It is not disputed that the OP-Society received initial payment from complainant for allotment of a site in his favour. The details of the scheme for allotment of sites, are not stated by either of the parties. One can say that there must be some more terms and conditions to be abided by the members who intended to own a site out of the layout to be formed. Form the pleadings it appears for the present the layout is in progress and almost at the final stage and therefore various members are intending to get a site out of it. The Learned Counsel for OP submitted that the bye-law of the Society prohibited from allotting a site to an associate member but a site can be allotted only to a member who is an employee of BEML Limited, K.G.F. The bye-law is not produced for verification. It appears there might be such restriction and it appears because of such restriction the complainant might have thought it fit to take back the amount with interest. Anyhow one can say that receiving a part of amount towards the price of site from an associate member amounted to deficiency in service by OP-Society when it was not allowed under bye-law to allot a site to an associate member. It is not the case of OP-Society that the said restriction was intimated to complainant before receiving the amount from him. In the absence of such intimation any ordinary person can assume that the priority would be maintained on the principle of first come first serve. It appears when the layout is in progress and in final stage, taking contention by OP-Society that it would serve first the members who are employees of BEML Limited, K.G.F. and thereafter it would look into the interest of associate members, surely amounts to deficiency in service. For the above reasons we hold point No.1 in affirmative.
Point No.2: The OP-Society has invested the amount received from complainant and similar other persons for development of layout to form sites. It is an admitted fact that there is steep increase in the value of real estate from the year 2006 onwards till this time. Therefore we think at least interest at the rate of 15% may be awarded to complainant from the date of deposit of the amount till the date of payment, besides ordering the return of the amount. Hence Point No.2 is held accordingly.
Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is partly allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OPs shall pay Rs.24,845/- (rupees twenty-four thousand eight hundred and forty-five only) to complainant with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the said amount from 06.01.2006 till the date of payment, within 4 weeks from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 23rd day of June 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
